Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

The Clerk, at the Table, informed the House of the absence of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's sitting, pursuant to leave given upon Tuesday 15 February.

Whereupon Mr. BERNARD WEATHERILL, The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair, as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Serpell Report (Consultants)

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what fees have actually been paid to the consultants Travers Morgan Ltd. for their work on the Serpell report.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Howell): Payments to date amount to nearly £370,000 inclusive of disbursements and VAT. Final accounts have not yet been received.

Mr. Whitehead: As over half the costs of the Serpell inquiry have gone in lucrative fees to the consultants Travers Morgan, would not the right hon. Gentleman consider it unwise to pay any further sums that may be outstanding to the firm, as many Opposition Members and others in the country believe that—inadvertently or not—he breached the guidelines in the code of practice with regard to seeking a sufficiently wide source of assistance and advice for such a committee? Many of us believe that this matter should go to the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. Howell: There is no question of a breach of the code of practice. The hon. Gentleman will see that page 5 shows that the procedures were strictly followed. The payments to Travers Morgan are strictly and closely audited and checked; and, of course, the PAC has a perfect right to look at them.

Mr. Dover: Is my right hon. Friend aware that several Conservative Members welcome the very quick findings of the consultants Travers Morgan and consider the fees paid to be a mere trifle compared with the enormous savings that will be possible?

Mr. Howell: It is true, as my hon. Friend points out, that the report identifies savings in excess of £200 million. Therefore, it is clearly worth while getting good and thorough complex financial and engineering studies.

Mr. Cryer: Is not the total cost paid out to two firms of consultants, which had two members on the Serpell committee, in excess of £500,000? Is it not curious that, although the Secretary of State always rabbits on about competition, these consultants were chosen without any competitive tendering whatsoever, contrary to the general rules of conduct applying to such business?

Mr. Howell: As I have said, the consultants were chosen not contrary to, but in accordance with, the code of practice laid down for their procurement. In this case, it was clear that there was a need to make rapid progress—as was strongly urged by British Rail—with complex financial and engineering studies. The consultants were chosen because they could give prompt backing to those selected to help with the review.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Can the Secretary of State cite one other case in which companies that have provided a consultancy service to a committee of inquiry have had their senior partners appointed to it? Where is that specified in the rules that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned?

Mr. Howell: There are precedents for the employment of consultants whose partners are committee members, and I shall let the hon. Gentleman have details— [Interruption]—if he so wishes. The rules for the employment of consultants make it clear that in exceptional circumstances an approach to a single firm may be made.

Mr. Ron Lewis: If, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the inquiry will save hundreds of millions of pounds, how does he intend to proceed?

Mr. Howell: We had a full debate in which I answered that question and implied that British Rail was being urged to seek the savings—well in excess of £200 million—that were identified in the Serpell report.

Overseas Railways (Rolling Stock)

Mr. Stott: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with the chairman of the British Railways Board the prospects for the manufacture in British Rail Engineering Ltd. workshops of rolling stock for overseas railways.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Reginald Eyre): Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend and I have made it clear that we will do everything we can to encourage the railway engineering industry to seek and win overseas orders.

Mr. Stott: No doubt the Minister is aware that British Rail Engineering Ltd. has issued compulsory redundancy notices to quite a lot of people, particularly in Westhoughton. At the same time, that company is farming out work to private enterprise. Will the Minister comment on that, particularly as the situation is so difficult? As British Rail has now secured an important order for the Congo, will the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State state categorically that they reject the options in the Serpell report about the future of British Rail Engineering Ltd.? Will the hon. Gentleman approve the investment programme for British Rail, so that the sleeper coaches on the London-Midlands line can be refurbished in British Rail workshops instead of being withdrawn from service, as currently planned?

Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman raises a number of questions, but he knows that the problems of over-capacity that have arisen in BREL, which have been given active consideration during the past year, throw upon BREL and BR the responsibility to organise their affairs to the best advantage.
The Government have strongly encouraged exports. They have helped through ministerial visits, support for


financial arrangements, and grants for the development of an international standard coach. We were delighted when the Congo recently placed a £23 million order. Overseas orders worth £75 million were won by BREL last year.

Mr. Bagier: The Minister says that BREL is suffering from over-capacity. Will he tell British Rail that it is wrong in principle to farm out the breaking up of old wagons to private enterprise, such as Dobbins of Chester and others? Will he instruct BR that if there is over-capacity, the capacity of the workshops should be fully utilised before work is farmed out?

Mr. Eyre: British Rail must make its commercial decisions about the allocation of work. The Government want to see more investment in the railways, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that alone will not solve the problems of BREL. We must take account of the technical changes that have taken place in the running of the railways—for example, wagon loads, the new style of wagons, their more efficient use and, therefore, the reduction in the number of wagons built and the reduction in repair work.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Does the Minister not realise that the Government are intervening in the affairs of British Rail? Does he not also realise that over the heads of British Rail there hangs the threat of cutbacks? How does he expect any part of British Rail to build up an efficient and viable industry not only for internal use but for exports? When will he help the nationalised British Rail to be more efficient and viable?

Mr. Eyre: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government want an efficient, competitive railway engineering industry that can supply British Rail and win overseas orders. His question relates to the responsibility of BREL and BR in conducting the affairs of the company to its best advantage.

Central London-Stansted Airport (Rail Link)

Mr. Haselhurst: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the chairman of the British Railways Board to discuss the feasibility of a rail link between central London and Stansted airport; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Eyre: The feasibility of a rail link to Stansted airport has already been established. Whether the link will be needed will depend on the decision on the proposed expansion of the airport.

Mr. Haselhurst: What would be the cost of such a project? Will that cost not further tend to question the wisdom of establishing a third London airport in north-west Essex? Will my hon. Friend consider whether such a sum might be better directed towards improving services on the Cambridge line so that my constituents can enjoy a railway service more fitting to the 1980s than to the 1930s?

Mr. Eyre: My hon. Friend knows that the Government have made it clear that they intend to provide a rail service to link the expanded airport with London. But a decision will not be taken before the outcome of the inquiry is known. British Rail's earlier study estimated a cost of about £170 million at 1980 prices. The detailed work currently under way shows scope for reducing that cost.
I note my hon. Friend's views about priorities for railway development.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Is the Minister aware that a rail link between Stansted airport and central London is more sensible than the proposal to build a dangerous and noisy heliport on the banks of the Thames opposite my constituency?

Mr. Eyre: I note the hon. Gentleman's opinion.

Mr. Colvin: Has my hon. Friend had the opportunity to compare the cost of a rail link with Stansted with the cost of extending the Picadilly line to serve a fifth terminal on the Perry Oaks site at Heathrow, which would cost only £19 million at 1979 prices? Is that not one good reason, together with many other good reasons, for developing a fifth terminal at Heathrow rather than embarking upon development at Stansted?

Mr. Eyre: My hon. Friend mentioned a factor that must be taken into account when the outcome of the inquiry is known. I know that he will understand that the decision on the airport will be taken by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Trade and for the Environment.

Mr. Wilkinson: In order to compare like with like, will my hon. Friend consider the cost of extending British Rail's network from Feltham to terminal 5, which would be much cheaper than building a new rail service from central London to Stansted?

Mr. Eyre: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. It will be taken into account in due course.

Mr. Jay: Will the Minister give an assurance that a decision will be taken on this matter before the end of the century?

Mr. Eyre: The right hon. Gentleman will have to await the outcome of the inquiry, and we cannot yet estimate when that will be.

Rail Electrification

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of the British Railways Board for the purpose of discussing plans for further electrification.

Mr. David Howell: I frequently meet the chairman of the British Railways Board to discuss matters of mutual interest, including plans for further electrification.

Mr. Spriggs: When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the chairman of the board, will he confirm that he intends to authorise the electrification of the line between Ashford and Hastings with the least possible delay? Will he also confirm that the rates of return for the electrification of the east coast main line are favourable? When the board's submissions are complete, will he authorise the electrification of the east coast main line without delay?

Mr. Howell: The Government recognise and have made a commitment to the need for a major investment on the Tonbridge to Hastings section of the line. Discussions are continuing on the precise form that the investment should take.
The British Rail Board brought forward figures last autumn for the electrification of the east coast line. It then withdrew them because it needed to revise the prospects


for inter-city business. I understand that it will bring forward new figures shortly, and I look forward to seeing them.

Mr. Hordern: Would not the prospects for electrification be greatly improved if British Rail were allowed to operate the parts that have been electrified—for example, the Bedford to St. Pancras line? Does not that and other restrictive practices, such as guards still travelling on goods trains when they are not required, make the prospect for British Rail rather bleak?

Mr. Howell: I assure my hon. Friend that British Rail has my full support in seeking to overcome the monstrous delay in the use of £150 million of modern equipment on the newly electrified line between Bedford and St. Pancras. It has become a symbol of the refusal of part of the trade union movement to accept the new practices that are necessary to go with the new investment.

Mr. James Hamilton: When the Minister next meets the chairman of the board, will he remind him of the speech that he made on 8 February when he stated clearly that if the electrification of the railways took place it would mean the renewal of diesel engines which, in many instances, would have to come from abroad? Will the Minister speak seriously with the chairman about that problem?

Mr. Howell: It is correct that, elsewhere in the system, diesel engines are coming to the end of their lives and are in need of renewal. However, the diesel equipment on the east coast line still has many years of service. That is why the Government and the British Railways Board seek to provide an overall view of inter-city services and how they can be brought to profit.

Dr. Mawhinney: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will tell the chairman of British Rail that once the proposals for the electrification of the east coast line are submitted to him they will be reviewed as a matter of urgency and a quick, and I hope positive, decision will be taken on them?

Mr. Howell: I shall do my best to look at the proposals as quickly as possible in the light of the criteria laid down by the Government, which have not changed since they were laid down in the summer of 1981, one of which was that there must be a prospect and a plan for how much inter-city business as a whole can be brought into profit.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a growing suspicion that the only programme of massive public expenditure that the Government seem eager to embrace is continuingly increasing unemployment? Would it not be better to devote resources to major items of expenditure, such as the gas-gathering pipeline, which the right hon. Gentleman rejected in another office, and major electrification? Would this not at least bring us into line with the practices of many of our competitors?

Mr. Howell: Yes, I welcome all worthwhile investment, and I welcome the fact that British Rail is lifting its moratorium on investment projects and will be able to increase investment next year. Investment in new infrastructure, including rail developments, is highly desirable where it is worth while and soundly based.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that consideration of electrification of the east coast main line route will be separate from and parallel to any consideration of the Serpell report?

Mr. Howell: The issue is being looked at separately from the Serpell report. The Serpell report made some observations about the long-term prospects for the inter-city business, but that does not alter the way in which the east coast electrification issue is being handled.

Mr. Robert Hughes: How many times has British Rail submitted figures on electrification to the right hon. Gentleman and how many times has he asked for recalculations to be done?

Mr. Howell: On the east coast main line, British Rail has brought forward proposals once before, and the next time will be the second occasion. British Rail decided to withdraw its calculations in November, following discussions with my Department which revealed that the revenue projections were no longer soundly based.

Road Construction

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent on new road construction in each of the past three years at constant prices.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): At average 1981–82 prices, expenditure on new construction of motorways and trunk roads in England was £438 million in 1979–80, £407 million in 1980–81 and £449 million in 1981–82. The corresponding figures for local roads were £380 million, £465 million, and £335 million. The last figure is still provisional.

Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that our roads are inadequate for the traffic that they have to bear? In such circumstances, does she not think that expenditure on new roads should be much higher in the next few years than it has been in the past three years?

Mrs. Chalker: Some roads are inadequate, but there was an increase in trunk road output of 10 per cent. in 1981–82 and of at least 10 per cent. more in 1982–83. We are seeking an extra £45 million this year for roads, by means of Supplementary Vote, because we have been able to make exceptional progress on work already in hand, so we shall be able to get on with extra structural repairs.

Mr. Eastham: Why is there all this emphasis on new road building, which has consequences for loan charges and which means that there will be less money for normal road maintenance? Does the Minister recognise that decaying infrastructure in the inner city areas is a deterrent to the development of industry? Is it not about time that there was a new emphasis on spending on maintenance rather than on major road schemes?

Mrs. Chalker: I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is right to maintain our roads, but maintenance spending on motorways and trunk roads rose by 27 per cent. in real terms between 1979–80 and 1981–82, and a further increase is likely in 1982–83. Nobody is more conscious than I of the need to maintain adequately our older roads which can still give very good service and have a good extended life.

Sir Anthony Royle: Will my hon. Friend speed up the construction of the M25 to give some relief to the continuing and serious problems on the south circular road?

Mrs. Chalker: As my hon. Friend knows, the south circular road is a matter for the Greater London council, not for my Department. The M25 not only has our top priority, but in many stretches it is running ahead of schedule. It will be completed by 1986, and two thirds of it is either under construction or will be completed for use later this year.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why is it that of the 22 new schemes introduced in this year's White Paper, only two fell within the area covered by the North of England County Councils Association? Why could not more of the schemes in Cumbria be introduced in this year's White Paper? Does the Minister recall that only two years ago the Government produced a White Paper that removed six schemes from the county of Cumbria?

Mrs. Chalker: Let us get this into perspective. In 1980, when the Government looked through the schemes said to be under preparation, they found that many were not under preparation but merely lines on a piece of paper. The review made sure that those schemes that were listed were truly under preparation. In last year's review I was able to bring schemes back into the preparation pool so that we could take advantage of lower tender prices and build those roads sooner.

Mr. Higgins: Given the need to increase expenditure on road maintenance and construction, what progress has my hon. Friend made on the suggestion that future roads should be funded partly from tolls?

Mrs. Chalker: There is, as my right hon. Friend knows, a working partly looking at private finance for roads. However, in general terms, it seems that we might be in the danger that France has experienced if we were to introduce tolls on roads now. The introduction of tolls on roads simply drives much of the traffic off the new roads on to unsuitable roads. I do not rule out that possibility for all time, but there are other means of financing new roads by the use of private funding, instead of introducing tolls.

Thamesmead Spine Road

Mr. Wellbeloved: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review the programme for the construction of the Thamesmead spine road with a view to ensuring the early completion.

Mrs. Chalker: The programming and priority given to this proposal are matters entirely for the Greater London council as highway authority.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Is the Minister aware that heavy traffic is imposing an increasing burden on local residents and that the attitude of the GLC is a cause for widespread dissatisfaction? Will the hon. Lady consider opening discussions with the GLC to see whether Mr. Livingstone can be persuaded to take a more helpful attitude towards traffic problems in Erith and Crayford?

Mrs. Chalker: I am well aware of the problems, because I have been to see the spine road and the area to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. However, before

the Department can consider funding, the GLC must include this scheme in its transport policies and programmes. Until the GLC gets on to this and puts it into its TPP, I am powerless to help. When it does so, I can help.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the interests of Londonders and of the country would be better served if the GLC attended to the matters for which it does have responsibility, which responsibility it carries out poorly, such as roads, instead of spending ratepayers' money on groups such as Babies against the Bomb and other freakish outlandish organisations which are a complete waste of ratepayers' money?

Mrs. Chalker: I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that Londoners will take careful note of where the money that they provide as ratepayers is being spent by the GLC.

Serpell Report

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many additional persons would be living within three miles of a railway station if network option C2, limiting the annual deficit to about £700 million, were adopted by Her Majesty's Government, rather than the option of a commercially viable railway as defined by the Serpell committee.

Mr. Eyre: The networks described in the Serpell report are broad illustrations, and not specified in sufficient detail to enable me to make the estimate requested.

Mr. Dalyell: Should not this country take advantage of the oil revenues for sensible, much needed railway investment? If there is £700 million, should it be spent on railway investment, or should the £684 million allocated next year to the defence budget be squandered in the South Atlantic?

Mr. Eyre: The serious part of the hon. Gentleman's question with regard to transport relates to the heart of the debate that is being conducted on the Serpell report on the nature of the development of a modern and efficient railway system.

Mr. Dewar: I accept that the options set out in the Serpell report are broad brushed, but has the Minister examined the interesting statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland, in an interview that was reported in the Sunday Standard of 9 January, that any Serpell option that involved substantial closures of railway lines in Scotland would be unacceptable to the Government? Will the Minister confirm that that is the position?

Mr. Eyre: I have not seen that report. However, if it is an accurate account of what my right hon. Friend said, there will be a good deal in it. The options that appear in the Serpell report are illustrative only. They show the network that there could be for various levels of support. The options presented are not a basis for policy choices on the structure of British Rail. That would require a great deal more work. It follows that there is nothing to rule out in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggested.

Sir Albert Costain: Is my hon. Friend able to calculate to the nearest £100 how much the question by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) would cost to answer, bearing in mind the cost of bringing together all the details for which he asked? In view of the gross number


of questions that the hon. Gentleman asks, has it been calculated what it costs to publish them and the accompanying answers?

Mr. Eyre: I cannot answer my hon. Friend's question precisely. The question by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) could not be answered, for the reason that I gave. However, to attempt to answer such a question would involve costs far in excess of the allowed maximum.

Mr. David Clark: In view of the statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland, will the Minister give an assurance that there will be no railway closures in the north of England, including the Newcastle-Carlisle line?

Mr. Eyre: There are no railway closure proposals before my right hon. Friend. I emphasise that the options in the Serpell report are illustrative only, in the way that I have explained.

British Railways Board

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with the chairman of the British Railways Board.

Mr. David Howell: I expect to discuss a wide range of subjects of mutual interest at my next meeting with the chairman of the British Railways Board.

Mr. Canavan: In view of the widespread concern in Scotland and elsewhere about some of the Serpell report options, which would annihilate the railways in many areas, will the Secretary of State ask the chairman to do what the right hon. Gentleman has so far failed to do, which is to come clean and tell us exactly what options in the Serpell report are still being considered and exactly what proportion of the existing railway network he intends to retain?

Mr. Howell: We had a full debate on this issue, during which I made it clear, as I have elsewhere, that while I rule out the extreme option of closing down virtually the entire railway network and leaving only a few hundred miles—

Mr. Foulkes: Thank you.

Mr. Howell: —the network maps in the Serpell report are merely illustrations of cost. The Government do not regard them as policy choices for the structure of the network. If we were to do so, far wider considerations would have to be taken into account in future. It is necessary, no doubt, that they should be. However, we now know more about the costs of running the passenger network. That is an asset and an improvement on the stale, sterile and rather useless debate that took place previously.

Mr. McCrindle: Among the many matters that will no doubt be discussed at the meeting between my right hon. Friend and the chairman of the British Railways Board, will my right hon. Friend try to ensure that somewhere on the list of topics is consideration of the replacement of the rolling stock on the eastern suburban commuter route, without which by the end of the decade my constituents will be faced with an even more uncomfortable journey than they face now?

Mr. Howell: As British Rail becomes more successful in curbing costs, and if it can avoid further unnecessary

and expensive industrial disputes, I hope that it will have more room for investment in modern railway equipment and be able to make better use of the new equipment which it already has, but which, alas, is sitting in sidings unused.

Mr. Huckfield: We recognise that the right hon. Gentleman is doing his best to bury the Serpell report before the general election. Does he recognise that it would be much better if he cremated it? Will he condemn the more ludicrous recommendations in the report, including the one that states that one of the ways in which railway management can save money is to cut railway safety standards?

Mr. Howell: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is so frightened of information. The Serpell report illustrates the costs of running the passenger network and various services and sets out how much revenue is obtained and how much they cost in terms of public support. Why is the hon. Gentleman frightened about that? I accept and recognise that safety must be paramount. The Serpell report does not question the importance of safety—it would be entirely wrong to do so—but poses the question whether high safety standards could be achieved more efficiently. That seems to be a legitimate question to which those interested in a modern and efficient railway should not shut their eyes. That should not prompt them to demand the burning of reports and books, which is an unhealthy sentiment.

Mr. Eggar: Is not the main message of the Serpell report that the railways are being run extremely inefficiently? When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the British Railways Board, will he make it clear to him that one of the most unacceptable features of the way in which the railway is being run is the high number of administrative staff—about 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. of the work force? Will he take this issue up with the chairman?

Mr. Howell: I agree with my hon. Friend that the central overheads of monolithic nationalised industries, of which British Rail is one, which we inherited from the Socialist past, are quite often excessive. It is high time that in this nationalised corporation and in others a far more vigorous look is taken at the way in which overheads can be reduced and a more efficient, decentralised and modern structure established.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not really want to go back to 1938 and the "fair deal" for the railways. Is he aware that British Rail cannot place new orders for rolling stock, especially coaches on the west coast main line, without the Secretary of State's consent to extend its external financing limit? Is it not a fact that it definitely needs new rolling stock for the west coast main line and for the southern region Portsmouth and Bournemouth routes?

Mr. Howell: The answer is no. The external financing limit has been set at a high level and within that there is room for British Rail—I hope very much that it will take advantage of it—to remove its self-imposed investment moratorium and step up its investment programmes. That depends on preventing a repetition of last year's tragedy, when large amounts of funds were sucked away and drained off in useless strikes. It depends also on its ability to get going and to proceed with the cost savings identified


in the Serpell report, which, to the credit of British Rail, both the chairman and the chief executive have embarked upon.

Mr. Stott: Is the Secretary of State aware that he mentioned during the debate on the Serpell report and today that he has ruled out acceptance of the extreme options contained within the report? Can we take it that the right hon. Gentleman has ruled out option H, which is the high investment option? Is that an extreme option? Will he say that he and the Government are committed to the maintenance of the existing 12,000 track miles on which British Rail currently has to operate? Will he tell me and the House that he is committed to the maintenance of the 12,000 miles?

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman will remember that a few moments ago I stated exactly what the Government ruled out for the long-term future size of the network. The other illustrative costs in the Serpell report tell us how much the network costs and how much parts of it cost. They do not provide a basis for policy choices. As the report shows, much more work would be required before those choices could be reached. The hon. Gentleman's supplementay question is based on a presumption of what the Serpell report states, which is not founded in fact.

Rear Fog Lights (Television Advertisements)

Mr. Colin Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions the Government advertisement on the correct usage of rear fog lights has been shown on commercial television channels; and if he is satisfied with its effect.

Mrs. Chalker: This short public service information film has been shown 94 times on independent television since the beginning of November in unsold advertising time at no cost to Her Majesty's Government. Since it does not form part of a specific road safety campaign, it has not been subject to formal evaluation, but I am satisfied that the item is effective.

Mr. Shepherd: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that the problem is by no means extinct and that more and more rear fog lights continue to be used on motorways and main roads when it is not foggy and visibility is not restricted? Does she agree that, as rear fog lights are about 20 times as intense as ordinary rear lights, if everyone used them there would be a severe danger due to lack of visibility? Does she further agree that it would be useful if the campaign were drawn into the road safety campaign so that the problem can be nailed once and for all?

Mrs. Chalker: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the misuse of rear fog lights is a real problem. There are limited occasions when it is necessary to have them on. The problem is a recent one, as more cars have recently been fitted with rear fog lamps. We are examining the matter carefully. If it seems necessary, I shall consider the improvement of tell-tale arrangements, such as exist for hazard warning lights inside vehicles, that warn the driver that the rear fog lights are on. We are including a new and special paragraph in the revision of the highway code. I shall see what can be done to ensure that it can be better made known to motorists so that they do not misuse their rear fog lights.

Falmouth (Container Terminal)

Mr. Parry: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what further applications he has received concerning the proposed container terminal at Falmouth; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. David Howell: None. The situation is unchanged since the statement by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on 9 November last.

Mr. Parry: Is the Secretary of State aware of the anxiety of Liverpool and Merseyside dock workers and the Transport and General Workers Union? Is he further aware that if the Government give permission under the Harbours Act 1964, that will mean the end of the Seaforth container terminal? Will the right hon. Gentleman remove the agony by putting the application off, once and for all?

Mr. Howell: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's anxiety, because he and some of his colleagues made it clear when they saw my hon. Friend. As I have said, there is no application before the Government at the moment. The Government have said that they will consider the matter if they are asked to do so. In that event, we should have to take fully into account all the relevant factors, including the impact on the rest of the ports industry and the available trade.

Dim-dip Lighting Regulations

Mr. Pawsey: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what response he has received to his consultation document on the draft dim-dip lighting regulations for new vehicles.

Mrs. Chalker: We have received a very favourable response. Organisations representing motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, street lighting and road safety experts and the police have welcomed the principle of dim-dip. Opposition has been confined largely to some vehicle manufacturers and traders, and two campaigning organisations. There has been opposition from the vehicle manufacturers and from an organisation campaigning for the mandatory use of dipped headlights.

Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for that typically helpful and comprehensive reply. Can she say what benefits will result from the introduction of dim-dip headlamps? Bearing in mind the success that we enjoyed with the dipped headlight campaign that her Department ran some time ago, why does she propose to introduce new regulations on the subject now?

Mrs. Chalker: The use of dim-dip headlights, if approved by the House, will make it impossible for someone to drive on side lights only without the need for enforcement activity. It will also give drivers the option of using dim-dip headlights at any time if they wish to be readily visible without there being a risk of glare. Dim-dip headlights do not create the same problem of dazzle that dipped headlights often do. On unlit roads and at night, normal headlights in the dipped position will continue to be required, but the general consensus seems to be that this is a useful step. I await further comments, although 37 organisations have responded and supported the dim-dip device.

Mr. Higgins: Will my hon. Friend take into account the appalling extent to which cyclists now drive at night


without any rear lights? Will she consider a television advertisement that brings to the attention of cyclists the dangers that they and other road users are subjected to because of that?

Mrs. Chalker: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. Cyclists who drive at night without illumination are putting themselves in great jeopardy. One can see that from the accidents that cyclists suffer. I hope that it will not be necessary to mount an expensive campaign, but we shall continue to monitor what they are doing about their illumination. They would help themselves if they wore reflective armbands and sashes at all times—day and night.

Mr. Booth: Will the Minister confirm that these draft regulations will apply only to new vehicles that are not yet registered? That being the case, does she agree that all the problems that she has just described will continue in existing vehicles? Does she agree that this must therefore be an unsatisfactory way of dealing with the problem?

Mrs. Chalker: It is necessary to see the issue in context. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that the suggestion is that the proposed dim-dip regulations would apply to new vehicles, but it is possible to fit a dim-dip device to existing vehicles, although that would be expensive for some motorists. It is worth bearing in mind the present rate of renewal of cars. I am sure, also, that many motorists will want to take advantage of the fact that they can adapt their lights to have a dim-dip facility. Although it will not cure the problem, the proper regulation of headlights will greatly help those who do not have a dim-dip device.

Public Service Vehicles (Roadside Inspections)

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will arrange to meet the Scottish traffic commissioners to discuss roadside inspections of public service vehicles.

Mr. Eyre: My right hon. Friend receives regular reports from the traffic commissioners about public service vehicles, but we are always willing to meet them to discuss particular points of concern.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the latest Scottish traffic commissioners' report said that out of 1,979 vehicles that were examined in a spot check, 200 received suspension notices, 95 of which were enforced immediately? Is he further aware that it said that, on routine checks, more than 200 vehicles were immediately issued with suspension notices—twice the figure for the previous year—and that that was described as an unnecessary risk to the public, which resulted from the failure to keep the number of inspectors up to standard? What discussions will the Minister have to ensure that the shortage of seven inspectors is immediately rectified or that their number is increased in the light of that serious report?

Mr. Eyre: Spot checks are part of the system for enforcing PSV standards. The number of inspections in Scotland is broadly in proportion to the number that take place throughout Great Britain. I note the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about the subject. We are willing to do anything that we can to improve and increase the standards of enforcement. I shall be ready to discuss that subject with the commissioners.

Mr. McQuarrie: Is my hon. Friend aware that most inspections take place in public laybys? When he meets the Scottish traffic commissioners, will he give them some guidance about giving advance notice to oncoming motorists about where an inspection is taking place? Is he aware that, invariably, one arrives at a spot where an inspection is taking place without having been warned, and that there is therefore a danger to motorists using that road?

Mr. Eyre: I note my hon. Friend's practical point. I shall arrange for that to be discussed with the traffic commissioners. According to my information, most inspections do not take place in laybys, as there is a desire to allow the PSV to go to a terminus, garage or proper parking space so that passengers will have disembarked and the inspection can be carried out properly. I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's point in mind.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that I am grateful to him for agreeing to review seating arrangements on school buses? Is he further aware that there is still great anxiety among many parents, especially in Strathclyde region, that some old vehicles—they are often more than 25 years' old—are being used for school bus contracts? Will he arrange for the traffic commissioners to make regular swoops to check the vehicles, as there is grave concern about the safety of schoolchildren?

Mr. Eyre: I shall certainly discuss that point with the commissioners. If the hon. Gentleman has any special matter of concern and would be kind enough to let me have details, I shall ensure that the matter is discussed in detail.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the Minister worried by the problem to which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) drew his attention? If he is, why has he not already had discussions with the traffic commissioners about the subject?

Mr. Eyre: I believe that considerable efforts are being made, within the resources that are available, to ensure that enforcement is carried out properly throughout Great Britain. Naturally, I am prepared to do anything that I can to improve those standards.

North-East Lancashire (Road Network)

Mr. Lee: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the primary road network in north-east Lancashire.

Mrs. Chalker: The joint trunk and county M65 motorway from Blackburn to Colne, together with the link via the M66 to Manchester, is progressively coming into use. When this key project and the other schemes in our programme are complete, the trunk network will be generally satisfactory; local roads are of course the county's responsibility.

Mr. Lee: Does my hon. Friend accept that a first-class motorway network is vital to the long-term economic development of north-east Lancashire? Therefore, does she acknowledge the strength of feeling about a full motorway link between the M65 and the M6 to the west and similarly, looking to the longer term in the east, a full motorway link to the Aire valley motorway to the east of Pendle?

Mrs. Chalker: I agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, a first-class motorway network is important. He knows


that we are already pressing ahead with preparations for essential improvements to the existing route to the north of Blackburn out to the M6. Following the meeting that I had in Preston, which was most useful, I shall consider any proposals from the Lancashire county council for the extension across to the M6. My hon. Friend spoke of an extension of the M65 eastwards into Yorkshire. There are no plans by us for that, because that road would have to be the responsibility of a county as the route is a principal route.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Retired Civil Servants (Inquiries)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the operation of the rules governing the appearance of retired civil servants before inquiries where their official knowledge is relevant.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): There are no rules relating specifically to the appearance of retired civil servants before inquiries.

Mr. Dalyell: Had Sir Anthony Parsons offered to give evidence to the Franks committee, is it likely that he would have become special advisor on foreign affairs to the Prime Minister? Had Sir Nicholas Henderson offered to give evidence to the Franks committee, is it likely that he would be the Prime Minister's preferred candidate to succeed George Howard as chairman of the board of governors of the BBC? Is it not extraordinary that the Franks committee did not ask either of those two key witnesses to give evidence? How can we treat as authoritative any report that has such startling omissions?

Mr. Hayhoe: There is no doubt that the supplementary questions asked by the hon. Gentleman have absolutely nothing to do with his original question. They were hypothetical in character. The hon. Gentleman is pursuing his campaign with his considerable ingenuity, by asking questions that have already been answered by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others.

Mr. Hordern: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) did much better on the "Lothian question" than he has done on the Falklands, which he has got consistently wrong from beginning to end?

Mr. Hayhoe: I agree with my hon. Friend that the hon. Gentleman has fallen below the high standards that we have come to expect of him in other matters.

Consultants (Ministerial Appointments)

Mr. Cryer: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will revise rules governing tendering for, and conflicts of interest in, consultants to bodies appointed by Ministers.

Mr. Hayhoe: The existing rules already give comprehensive guidance. There are no plans for revision at present.

Mr. Cryer: If the existing rules give comprehensive guidance, does the Minister realise that two members of the Serpell committee are principal partners in two consultancies which, between them, received over £500,000? Is he aware that the public at large are

extremely suspicious, particularly when one of the committee members is a friend of the Prime Minister's economic adviser? Does he realise that those two consultants have been lining their pockets at the expense of the public purse? It is not good enough to have rules that allow such a thing to happen. If it is happening, as it clearly is, the rules must be revised. Such a thing would not be allowed in local government. People feel that the Government are applying a set of double standards.

Mr. Hayhoe: I heard the exchanges between the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport earlier. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is pursuing this vendetta in the way that he is.

Mr. William Hamilton: Scandalous.

Mr. Hayhoe: The appointment of consultants was fully in accordance with normal rules and precedents.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Is the Minister aware that there is appreciable public concern and anxiety about the circumstances in which the Serpell committee appointed consultants outwith the normal tendering arrangements? Will the Minister confirm that, with regard to the appointment of those two companies, the contracts should have gone out to tender had the guidelines established by the Government's chief accountant been observed? Those guidelines laid down that a candidate would be ruled out if there was a clash or a potential clash of interests. In those circumstances, is there not a case for a revision of the rules?

Mr. Hayhoe: The guidance that was given by the chief accountant was in no way broken by what was done on this occasion. I remind the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members of the clear precedent in 1974 provided by the McGregor inquiry into the press, which had, as one of its members, Mr. Chorley of Coopers and Lybrand.

Mr. Cryer: It was wrong then.

Mr. Hayhoe: That inquiry commissioned work from Coopers and Lybrand. That precedent in 1974 under the Labour Government makes nonsense of the spurious anger on this issue.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the highly unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity. I hope that you will give me a favourable opportunity.

Dispersal Programme (Northern Region)

Mr. Dormand: asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many Civil Service posts have been transferred to the northern region since May 1979.

Mr. Hayhoe: As I have told the hon. Member on many previous occasions, the dispersal programme announced on 26 July 1979 did not include any transfer of posts to the northern region. Details of posts that may have been transferred by Departments for management reasons are not held centrally.

Mr. Dormand: So the answer is none. For how long will the Government be so obstinate on this matter? If the Government are so concerned about the northern region, as they often say they are, why do they not use the power that is in their hands to transfer jobs to the north? If the


Government will not do that, will they at least stop taking jobs away from the north by transferring the regional offices to other parts of the country?

Mr. Hayhoe: It is important to recognise that the need to contain public expenditure prohibits any further dispersal initiative in the forseeable future. That is the same answer as I have given to the hon. Gentleman previously, but he asked the same question.

Mr. Hal Miller: Does the Minister agree that if the Departments were charged rent for the premises that they occupy Ministers might revise their thinking about the amount of office accommodation they think they need in central London and there might also be a saving in public expenditure?

Mr. Hayhoe: My hon. Friend raises an important matter. Account should be taken of the rents of premises. Repayment arrangements of the kind that he described are now being put in place.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: While the Minister will not transfer existing Civil Service posts to the regions, may I ask him whether he is aware that in the Telecommunications Bill there is provision for the establishment of what will be the largest single quango of all time, the Office of Telecommunications? Will he consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry about locating that office in one of the regions?

Mr. Hayhoe: I shall draw the right hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend. Perhaps he will make sure that the Bill proceeds at proper speed and is not delayed by the curious tactics that have been used by some of his hon. Friends.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: More to the point, how many Civil Service jobs have been transferred out of the northern region by the transfer of regional offices by various Government Departments to Leeds? Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the latest proposition to

relocate the Property Services Agency from Newcastle to Leeds is nothing short of ludicrous? The Government should think again.

Mr. Hayhoe: I do not have that figure available, but I will certainly write to the hon. Gentleman, if I can find it.

Civil Service Unions

Mr. Parry: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what subjects he plans to discuss at his next meeting with the Civil Service unions.

Mr. Hayhoe: Plans for my next meeting with the Civil Service unions have not yet been made.

Mr. Parry: Is the Minister aware of the concern and low morale of civil servants in the DHSS in the north-west region over staffing levels, and the grave danger of the social security system grinding to a halt? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to examine that serious problem?

Mr. Hayhoe: I was not aware of any particular problem in the north-west region as described by the hon. Gentleman, but I will certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the point that he has been made.

Mr. Chapman: When my hon. Friend next meets the Civil Service unions, will he discuss with them the reduction in the number of civil servants since 1979? Will he confirm that the Government are on target and say whether there have been many forced redundancies to achieve that considerable reduction?

Mr. Hayhoe: The latest figures show that the Civil Service is now some 80,000 smaller than it was in May 1979. That is a very substantial reduction and we are firmly on course to achieve the target of 630,000 by April next year. A substantial number of those reductions has been achieved through the processes of natural wastage and without enforced redundancies.

Associated British Ports (Sale of Shares)

Mr. Albert Booth: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the sale of shares in Associated British Ports".
The matter is specific because it relates to the sale of commercial control of the largest port operator in Great Britain and to the transfer of ownership of 19 ports.
I submit that the matter is important because the British Transport Docks Board and Associated British Ports have a fine profit record, making profits in virtually every year except 1981, and because those profits have allowed them to invest £100 million over 10 years in a public asset without drawing in any way on the public purse or going to the market.
It is also important because, in order to make the proposition attractive to private investors, the Secretary of State for Transport has written off a loan of £81 million to the British Transport Docks Board and is requiring private shareholders to repay only £25 million of loan.
The matter is urgent because this morning, when trading in the shares opened for the first time on the Stock Exchange, their value shot up from the 112p set by the Secretary of State to 137p, revealing a most serious undervaluation of this public asset.
The matter is also urgent because control of public assets of £158 million is passing, for a very small return to the Exchequer.
I submit that the matter must be debated in the House, because this is not the first such scandal. If follows the Amersham International scandal, after which the Public Accounts Committee in its tenth report 1981–82 said:
it should be possible in future to avoid a repetition of such large windfall profits".
It further recommended that the Treasury,

with Departments, should re-examine carefully what steps could be taken in any future sales to minimise the risk of further large profits being made at the taxpayer's expense.
There is a clear prima facie case that that advice has been utterly disregarded by the Secretary of State for Transport.
I further submit that the Government have engaged in an action entirely contrary to an assurance given on the passing of the legislation. I quote the Official Report of the Standing Committee proceedings on the Transport Bill in March 1981, when the Under-Secretary of State said, with reference to Associated British Ports:
assuming that one has made no mistakes, and assuming that one has given the company the right capital structure and handled the flotation in the proper way, one will obtain the market value.
He went on to say:
We will get the market value."—[Official Report, standing Committee E, 3 March 1981; c. 736.]
It is now crystal clear, however, that the sale has been organised in such a way that the public will not get the market value. It is clear that there has been action by the Secretary of State in pursuance of a vicious doctrinaire attack on the nationalised transport industry with blatant disregard of the public interest. I therefore submit that it is a matter for consideration by the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the sale of shares in Associated British Ports".
I have listened most carefully to the submission made by the right hon. Gentleman. He will understand that the only decision that I have to take is whether to give this matter precedence over the business already set down for today or tomorrow.
Under Standing Order No. 9, I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the order but to give no reasons for my decision.
I have to rule that the right hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Elderly People (Fuel Bills)

Mr. David Winnick: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, namely,
the need for the Government to provide adequate assistance for those on limited incomes, especially the elderly, to help pay for fuel bills during the present cold weather".
The matter is specific in that the application deals with the special problems faced by those on the most limited incomes, especially the elderly, in trying to keep their accommodation adequately heated and being able to meet the cost of doing so. No one can doubt the importance of this in view of the cold weather and the position of people with inadequate incomes in trying to pay for their heating. Medical warnings are frequently given about the danger to the health of the elderly due to inadequate heating of their homes. In the present climate, hypothermia remains a constant danger to so many pensioners who are struggling to make ends meet.
An additional reason for my application is that so far this year no authorisation has been given for the single payment for extra heating help for those receiving supplementary benefit. Such a payment was made last year and, although in my view it was inadequate and gave no help to anyone not receiving supplementary benefit, it was at least some limited assistance to the poorest people in the country. There are, however, 750,000 pensioners who receive rent and rate rebates but do not receive supplementary benefit. They receive no assistance at all with their heating costs.
We all know how substantially gas and electricity prices have risen in recent times. Last night, Conservative Members expressed concern about British people. I maintain that the way to show our concern is to ensure that the elderly in our community have sufficient financial assistance to meet their heating costs.
In conclusion, it is a scandal that so many—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to the point and explain why the matter is urgent.

Mr. Winnick: It is urgent because it is a scandal that so many elderly people in our community and those without adequate incomes have to suffer the present cold climate without being able adequately to heat their homes. Many of them wrap themselves in blankets or go out of the house during the day. For those reasons, I believe that a debate is necessary and justified.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the need for the Government to provide adequate assistance for those on limited incomes, especially the elderly, to help pay for fuel bills during the present cold weather.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9, I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the order but to give no reasons for my decision. I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member has said. I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order 1983

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, I raised the subject of adequate time being allocated to discuss the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order 1983. I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that under Standing Order No. 3(1) (b), in view of the importance of the subject of the motion, you could rule that the debate be extended. I ask you to give this matter serious consideration as only 90 minutes is allocated to this order, which has taken the commissioners three years to compile and which covers 36 constituencies in Wales. If the 30 hon. Members directly involved wanted to participate in the debate today, each would have only three minutes to debate an issue which directly affects all their constituencies. I beg you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to consider whether the time allocated can be extended.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not aware of a precedent for any hon. Member asking the Chair to allocate more time under that Standing Order before it has becomes apparent that there are hon. Members who still wish to speak after the expiration of the time allocated.
Is it not entirely premature to ask the Chair to make such a disposition in advance of any evidence that the House will not have gone to bed from boredom because of a lack of hon. Members wanting to speak on the subject?

Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For the constituency of Ogmore, I could use the one and a half hours myself.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has taken the words out of my mouth. It is too early to consider whether we shall operate that Standing Order until the debate has taken place. I assure the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) that I shall give consideration to it.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand you to say that if a number of speakers have not been called during the debate on the order, you will give serious consideration to extending the time in view of the importance and urgency of the matter under discussion. That might be helpful.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is putting words into my mouth. I said that I would consider the matter when we entered upon the debate.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 4 MARCH

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Barry Sheerman
Mr. Thomas Cox
Mr. Arthur Palmer

Truck Acts (Abolition)

Mr. Peter Viggers: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to facilitate the payment of wages other than in cash by repealing the Truck Acts.
The purpose of my Bill is to remove one obstacle which currently prevents a move to cashless pay—the payment of wages other than in cash by way of cheque or monthly credit transfer through a bank. This is an area in which we lag behind our western competitors. The costs of payment in cash are great and our competitive position is weakened because such costs are unproductive.
The size of the problem is illustrated by the fact that in 1979, 13·5 million workers were paid in cash—55 per cent. of all workers, 78 per cent. of manual workers and 35 per cent. of non-manual workers. The number of workers paid in cash has been falling and it is estimated that during 1981 some 44 per cent. were paid in cash. That contrasts with our competitors—in the United States 1 per cent. only of workers are paid in cash; in Canada and Germany some 5 per cent.; in France the number is under 25 per cent. and in Holland, after a determined campaign by the Government, some 15 per cent. are paid in cash.
There are various advantages in cashless pay. The employer gains in various ways. First, he gains in efficiency and reduced costs. He does not have to make up pay packets. There is no queueing for pay and no leaving work to queue for pay. It has been estimated that about £30 a year per worker would be saved by a move from cash pay to monthly credit transfer, and good employers share that benefit with their employees. Employees gain from cashless pay. The employer becomes more competitive. One company has been able to give a special incentive of £50 per worker switching to cashless pay, and arrangements have been made through banks for employees to be given special banking facilities.
There are clear advantages for employees. They have access to banking facilities; and bills, which are increasingly paid monthly, can be paid through banks. There is no need to make special arrangements with colleagues to collect wages during holidays or illness. There is less risk of mistake. Security is helped. In 1979, there were 187 robberies or attempted robberies from security vans which involved some 33 injuries.
There are advantages for banks. They obtain new customers. There are advantages particularly for the national giro and more business will be available for sub-post offices.
What are the obstacles to cashless pay? First, there is the innate conservatism of the British worker. He is unwilling to trust banks. He does not know a bank and has no reason to move to one, having been quite happy with cash in the past. An example of regional differences in the payment of wages was put before me recently. One is of

a miner going home and throwing his pay packet in his wife's apron. That still exists in certain parts of the country. The wife takes the pay packet and returns some to the husband. There are other practices. Part of the wage packet belongs to the wife, but overtime and bonus payments are the husband's. He is not keen that she should know what he has for his drinks in the club. That is not my example. It was given by Mr. David Basnett at a colloquium on cashless pay in June 1981. I do not underestimate the British worker's innate conservatism and distrust of institutions.
A major job must be done to improve communications and information on this subject. Employers and banks realise that any move to cashless pay needs careful planning and sympathetic understanding of problems that inevitably arise. They are doing their bit with some success and so are union leaders, who are also generally behind this campaign.
However, obstacles to cashless pay exist, and one that is within Parliament's control is the legislation known as the Truck Acts. That legislation, which dates from 1464, has protected workers against exploitation, was codified during the 19th century and is now codified by the Payment of Wages Act 1960. Manual workers other than domestic workers must receive their pay in cash. All wages must be paid in cash unless otherwise requested, and a cheque does not count as cash. The agreement to receive wages other than in cash can be withdrawn at any time, and that is a major disincentive to switching to cashless pay.
Clearly, the protection given by the Truck Acts is anachronistic. I hasten to add that I wish workers to be properly protected against exploitation, and nothing that I intend would prevent that. Therefore, I urge the repeal of the Truck Acts. They are divisive and outdated. Their removal will help to encourage the move to a standard means of payment for all employees. Nothing in my Bill will force change. I intend to remove one obstacle to single staff status for all workers and I hope that it will be supported as such.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peter Viggers, Sir William Clark, Mr. John Loveridge, Mr. Michael Grylls, Mr. Peter Lloyd, Mr. Anthony Nelson, Mr. Richard Page, Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark and Mr. Michael Colvin.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Merchant bankers, estate agents, company directors and parliamentary consultants.

TRUCK ACTS (ABOLITION) BILL

Mr. Peter Viggers accordingly presented a Bill to facilitate the payment of wages other than in cash by repealing the Truck Acts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 25 March and to be printed. [Bill 80.]

Telecommunications Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Committee

1. The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 10th March 1983.

Report and Third Reading

2. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 43 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be moved to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory Motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on first allotted day

7.—(1) On the first allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.

(3) If the first allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

Private business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be

considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

12. — (1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—

"allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
"the Bill" means the Telecommunications Bill;
"Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
"Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

May I open my contribution to this debate with a few remarks about the Telecommunications Bill.
When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry announced the new policy for telecommunications in a statement to the House on 19 July, he made it clear that the Government intended a major change. The Telecommunications Bill sets out that change, and it is one of the main parts of the Government's legislative programme for this Session. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that this is a major and important Bill. It will enable British Telecom to become a major force in the world telecommunications market. It will help to promote competition and, we hope, to improve efficiency. It will make possible an expansion through development of new and better services. This should bring benefits to all users of telecommunication services and apparatus, to the companies that supply them and to those who work in those companies.
Enterprises can best flourish and meet the requirements of their customers efficiently if they are generally outside the net of Government controls. Therefore, we intend after the next election to turn British Telecom into a public limited company and to seek the partnership of private capital. The plan is to offer 51 per cent. of its shares for sale to the private sector. That in itself will be a major event that requires much careful preparation in legislation, as is provided in part IV of the Bill.
The Bill provides for the ending of the exclusive privilege of British Telecom to run telcommunications systems, and ensures that in future all those who run telcommunications systems will require licences from my right hon. Friend. British Telecom's ability to license others to run systems is also removed. Those changes are accompanied by others that relate to duties imposed on public telecommunications operators or to privileges that they will receive. The Bill provides for those duties and privileges to apply to all public operators, in harmony with our objective of making those who run systems subject to the same law.
To ensure fair competition between those providing telecommunication services and apparatus, and to ensure that consumers and other users of such services and

apparatus are given adequate protection, the Bill establishes a new regulatory body for telcommunications, the Office of Telcommunications, or Oftel.
Two other topics are covered in the Bill. First, the Telegraph Acts 1863 to 1916, which govern the way in which telecommunication operators can place their plant in streets and private land, are repealed and replaced in schedule 2 by a modern telecommunications code. The Telegraph Acts, notwithstanding their origins with the Government of Disraeli, have been criticised by many authorities for their obscurity and other deficiencies. The Government, therefore, welcome the opportunity to revise this area of the statute. That will undoubtedly be of greater importance in future with the expansion in telecommunications that is already predicted, and will be further nurtured by the changes that I am describing. Secondly, the Bill amends the Wireless Telegraphy Acts 1949 to 1967 and makes further provision for the enforcement of those Acts.
I have set out the main objectives of the Bill in some detail so that hon. Members will realise how just is my claim that this is a major Bill with far-reaching consequences.
The Bill received its Second Reading in the House on 29 November by a majority of 281 to 237, and began its Committee stage on 9 December. The British Telecommunications Act, which received Royal Assent in 1981, passed through the Committee stage in this place in 48 hours of debate.
My hon. Friends the Minister for Industry and Information Technology and the Under-Secretary of State for Industry, who are taking the Bill through Committee, hoped for the same positive and constructive approach from Opposition Members as they showed two years ago. I regret to report that their hopes have not been fulfilled. It is an understatement that progress has been slow.

Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend said that he hoped that this matter would be treated seriously. When he made that statement, was he aware that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) was smirking all over his face, which reflects how he treated the Bill in Committee?

Mr. Biffen: It is my job to keep the temperature low in this debate. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), who made an evangelical trip to my constituency at the weekend—he is always a welcome visitor—has made a unique contribution to the debates hitherto, and nothing that I say is designed to provoke him into a repetition.
The Committee has spent a total of 110 hours in debate but has not progressed beyond clause 3. The Committee did not agree to let clause 1 stand part of the Bill until its eighth sitting, by which time the Committee had sat for 23 hours. Schedule 1 took a further five hours. Clause 2 did not begin until the ninth sitting and took more than 17 hours before it was agreed to. These are now part of the Bill, but a further 81 clauses and five schedules have still to be debated. The Committee has not reached the important clauses dealing with the issue and amendment of licences. It has not discussed the approval of telecommunications apparatus to designated standards, the common provisions for public telecommunication operators in clauses 22 to 33, or the offences provided in clauses 34 to 39. The Director General of


Telecommunications' consumer protection functions have not been discussed, nor have clauses 55 to 63, which enable privatisation of British Telecom.
I could continue, but perhaps the less than satisfactory progress is best summed up by noting that, after over 100 hours of debate on the Telecommunications Bill, the Committee has not yet reached clause 4, where a telecommunications system is defined.
As I have mentioned, the Committee is now debating clause 3. This debate has lasted 65 hours. Clause 3 sets out guidelines for the Secretary of State and the director in performing their functions under the Bill. That makes it centrally important, but surely not to the extent implied by the figures that I have mentioned. Events in Committee have attracted some attention in the press, and there is discussion among those interested in mere statistics about records having been set. Those who have lived through the Committee can describe for the House far more poignantly than I the nature of the records. Indeed, the experience has generated a wider consideration of our Standing Committee procedures. Should I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which I fear I shall, I hope that I may touch upon that during the next debate.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Has not this criticism been made because the Government have deliberately not used the procedures available to them of asking the Chairman of the Committee to accept closures in order to build up the number of hours of debate in Committee to enable them to bring the guillotine procedure to the Floor of the House?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian who is rarely wrong, but he is monumentally wrong in these circumstances. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology will explain the problems of moving a closure on a speech of a marathon quality. It is not true that every stratagem has been searched to enable the ton to be scored before I am empowered to come to the House to ask for a guillotine. It has not worked in those circumstances.
Some further examples of the calculated use of time are worth noting. The Opposition complained that they wished more time to debate the Bill. When my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology put down a motion for the Committee to meet on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons, there was spirited resistance from the Opposition and a valuable three hours were spent debating the very objective that the Opposition claimed they sought.
My hon. Friend has been pressed by the Opposition to release various pieces of information to the Committee, especially details of British Telecom's draft licence, which will be required once the Bill comes into force, and copies of the Littlechild report on which my hon. Friend spoke to the House on 7 February. When these papers were released, the immediate reaction of the Opposition in both cases was to move for an adjournment.
I must at this point emphasise that the Government's broad acceptance of the Littlechild report is a development of our policy, which is fully consistent with the Bill. If acceptance of the Littlechild report requires any amendments to the Bill, they will be modest and will in no way affect its structure. The Government will not be able to complete this major item of their programme this Session unless the Committee concludes its discussion of

the Bill at a more expeditious pace. There is no sign that the Opposition have any intention of significantly moving forward. I must, therefore, now request the House to agree that the Bill should be reported by 10 March, with subsequent Report and Third Reading to take place on two allotted days.
The timetable motion that the Government have now put before the House would permit the Standing Committee to meet for a further seven days, giving another 13 sittings if the Business Sub-Committee decides to continue morning and afternoon sittings as at present. This will enable the Committee to go about its work in the constructive manner that is appropriate to the major legislative proposals contained in the Bill.
It is evident that there is no disposition on the part of those who oppose the Bill to allow it to make sufficient progress without the motion. It is the Government's responsibility to ensure that this major and important Bill reaches the statute book, so that the substantial and wide-ranging benefits that will flow from it can be effectively realised. Therefore, I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. John Silkin: The Leader of the House referred to the Bill as being of major importance, occupying a large part of the Government's legislative time this Session. I have no quarrel with that. The right hon. Gentleman neglected to tell the House that the Bill has no mandate from the electorate. It did not appear in the Conservative manifesto and it cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called an essential Bill either for the economy or in any other way. The Bill gratifies some ideological ideas, theories and principles of the Conservative party. It should be resisted in a democratic way to the fullest possible extent.
What are the conditions for a guillotine? I have said on other timetable motions that one of the prerequisites of the Bill—unless it is a Bill that is brought in unexpectedly but is essential to the running of the country—is that it should be given maximum time. The Bill is not being given maximum time. Any Government are entitled to get a Bill through the House in a reasonable time. What is a reasonable time? In this case, a reasonable time is one that occupies the whole session. That would be right, as the Bill has no mandate from the electorate.
There is another right, as important if not more important to the Leader of the House, to the Government Chief Whip and to the Treasury Bench than any other, because the Opposition will take advantage of that right. It is the right to scrutinise, debate and change the legislation where they will. The House of Commons protects that right and has always done so.
Let the House consider the chronology of the weeks, days and hours of the Bill. The Leader of the House gave hon. Members a potted chronology. He wished that my right hon. and hon. Friends who are on that Committee had treated the Bill with the same speed as the British Telecommunications Bill in 1980. I spoke on Second Reading of that Bill. The then Secretary of State for Industry saw that Bill as something of a holy grail. He is now searching for another holy grail in the Department of Education. He does this in successive Departments, ruining them as he goes along. At that time, I questioned the right hon. Gentleman about what the licence meant and what powers he had. He did not know what powers he then had, but very soon after, fortunately, he moved.
That Bill was different from the Bill that has been presented to my right hon. and hon. Friends on this occasion, which is one that they need to oppose with every democratic right that they have. Hon. Members must consider the timing that the right hon. Gentleman has given to the House. The Second Reading took place on 2 November 1982, and the Standing Committee commenced on 9 December 1982.
I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was a little cavalier to Professor Littlechild. He said that one or two slight amendments might be necessary to the work of art produced by the good professor and commissioned by the Minister of State, Department of Industry, some months earlier. For reasons best known to the Minister of State, he kept the Littlechild report to himself until 7 February 1983, when he made his statement, and said, "Here it is."

The Minister for Industry and Information Technology (Mr. Kenneth Baker): The right hon. Gentleman is implying that I was keeping this to myself. I made it clear to the Committee several times—he will see it if he has read the Hansard proceedings—that I did not receive Professor Littlechild's report until 17 January. I said that I first had to read it myself, and I made it available on 7 February. That is not undue delay.

Mr. Silkin: The delay is not undue, but it makes my point for me. The pressure from my hon. Friends on the Minister was based on the report's relevance to the Committee. The Minister finally accepted that, having first said that it was not really relevant. But it is absolutely interwoven into the Committee and the Bill, as is "Ringing the Changes"—the draft licence. My hon. Friends would have preferred a licence.
These are interwoven facts. The report was made available on 7 February and is of great importance to the Committee. Interesting and important things were said in it. For example, paragraph 9 of appendix 1 states:
After some manipulation, the Euler optimality condition for the maximisation of (1) can be written (suppressing t for simplicity)"—
because we need to suppress t for simplicity—
"π'(X) +π/X · o(r - g)/h=0"
That is an important equation on which, frankly, the whole basis of the Bill stands. It needs some examination. It is not given to all of us, poor lay minds that we have, to be able to tackle it on the spur of the moment, unlike the Minister, who is known locally as the Isaac Newton of St. Marylebone. For the rest of us, it takes time, energy and some discussion.
Indeed, there was some discussion— [Interruption.] I am sorry that the Government Chief Whip does not appear to understand it. It is bound up with what Isaac Newton used to call the theory of fluxions—differential calculus to the right hon. Gentleman.
I have considered and looked at the Committee proceedings in Hansard, and I see nothing but moderation throughout. In fact, I am astonished at the amount of moderation. There was, however, one serious breach. I read it with interest, and it took 11 hours. That was the amendment introduced by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) which took 11 hours of debate.

Mr. Timothy Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the entire debate on my amendment

took 11 hours, whereas the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) took 11 hours just to introduce his amendment?

Mr. Silkin: Having read every word that my hon. Friend said in his 11 hours, I was really sorry that it came to an end. As for the hon. Gentleman, I was extremely sad that his debate went on so long.

Mr. Timothy Smith: It was not my fault, was it?

Mr. Silkin: Certainly not, except that the hon. Gentleman introduced an amendment that he did not understand and ended by contradicting himself 11 hours later. Of course it was not his fault. He should have known something about what he was introducing.
I have said that, where there is no mandate, there should be no guillotine for a Bill such as this. That remains true. It is certain that this is a clash of two vital philosophies. The Opposition in the Committee have a duty to protect not only the British public but the 230,000 people who work in this industry. They need protection. It is extraordinary that what is happening here is a total disregard for the future of British industry and, indeed, the survival of many of our manufacturing industries.
It may be a curious thought with which to leave the House, but the Government who do everything they can to see that food remains expensive—the Prime Minister sent a message just today to a British food exhibition saying that we should buy British food—are at the same time willing to open a vast and important technological industry to the destruction that would be wreaked upon it from foreign competitors.
In one way I agree with the Leader of the House. In one sense all the hours of debate have been a waste of time, because within a few months from now a Labour Government will repeal the Bill anyway.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker Mr. Bernard Weatherill: Order. I understand from the exchanges that have taken place that some lengthy speeches were made in Committee. I remind the House that the debate lasts for only three hours, and I ask for short contributions.

Mr. Barry Henderson: The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) scored a considerable achievement in a speech that was brief for reasons that we all understand. He thought of something to say about the Bill that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) has not said in Committee at least three or four times already. The right hon. Gentleman did so by taking us through that fascinating formula.
In pointing to the major difference between both sides of the House with regard to the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman fell into a fundamental error by assuming that the whole of the telecommunications industry is British Telecom. Certainly it is the largest part of the industry—a most important part—and I hope that all hon. Members will be concerned about the 250,000 people who now work for British Telecom. However, there are tens of thousands more people who can be brought into the telecommunications industry, not only by the passing of this Bill but by the previous 1981 Act. It is important to understand that British Telecom, hugely significant though it is in our economy and the international telecommunications industry, is not the whole of our industry.
The information given by the Leader of the House has identified the contrast between the way in which this Committee has operated and the way in which the Committee considering the 1981 Bill operated. The 1981 Act was far more fundamental because it introduced the possibility of competition and a modest measure of liberalisation in the British Telecom regime, quite apart from its significance of splitting the activities of the Post Office from British Telecom.
That was of much more fundamental importance than the Bill now before us, yet an extremely competent opposition to that Bill did not require a timetable. Had there been real intent among members of the Committee on this occasion to debate the legitimate and important issues outlined by the right hon. Member for Deptford, I do not believe that a guillotine would have been required.
I said that the Bill follows the modest measure of liberalisation in competition introduced by the 1981 Act. It proposes two main measures. The first is that it paves the way for the floating on the market of half the shares in British Telecom. It has been made clear that once the Bill becomes law the Government will move in that direction, but only after a general election has taken place.
One thing that has been of continual concern both on this Bill, and the previous one, is the whole question of funds by means of which we can stimulate the growth of the business of British Telecom and the extent to which we can expand the network and make it more efficient. This is the primary reason for my warmly welcoming this Bill. By simply freeing British Telecom from being a nationalised industry and turning it into a public limited liability company, one immediately releases it from the constraints of the public sector borrowing requirement. As a result, it can borrow as much as it pleases, consistent with commercial prudence. That is of tremendous importance for all who are concerned about the future of British Telecom, its management and its workpeople, as well as for the development of good telecommunications facilities in this country.
In addition to borrowing on a loan basis—this is of particular importance to the consumer—British Telecom will be able to go to the market to raise funds on a long-term risk basis. This will enable investment to continue and to be increased from the £1,500 million a year, roughly the present level, without loading subscribers' current telephone bills to pay for facilities on which the return will come only over many years and, in some cases, many decades.
These two factors are very important and constitute a real advantage. I hope that during this debate Opposition Members will, if nothing else, concede that this inflow of funds to power the growth and improvement in efficiency of British Telecom will be of genuine advantage, whatever they may feel about the principle of freedom from being a nationalised industry.
The other important element that has caused some difficulty to Labour Members is that they want to see the continuation of a monopoly while we want to see as free an environment as possible for the benefit of the consumers. This leads me to the second main proposition in this Bill, as I understand it, which is that we are creating a regime in which there can be licensing and policing of the whole telecommunications environment.
In introducing this Bill, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has struck a very good balance between the licensing duties of the Secretary of State for Industry on

the one hand and the policing duties of the Director General of the new Office of Telecommunications—Oftel—on the other. Getting this balance right, introducing this new means whereby we can ensure the compliance of this great company, BT, with the will of Parliament, in terms of the facilities that it is to provide throughout the country, is of great importance to people such as my constituents in rural areas. Not only are the duties of British Telecom more clearly and precisely spelt out in this Bill and in the licensing proposals that will go with it than in any previous legislation, but the Bill also provides the means of making certain that British Telecom will comply with the obligations laid upon it.
Although it has taken a long time to get round to clause 3 in Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister has very helpfully spelt out the kind of amendments he is prepared to introduce on Report, not only to meet the legitimate concern of my hon. Friends but, to be fair to Opposition Members, to ensure that we have correctly defined the duties of the Secretary of State and the Director General of Oftel so that special interests, such as those of rural areas and of special services, will continue to be maintained equally throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: My right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) was right to emphasise that the Government have no mandate for the Bill. It was not in the manifesto on which they fought and won the last general election. On occasion it has been described as a measure of privatisation. It is, in fact, a measure of piratisation of a national asset in the interests of those who are eager to make a quick buck. It puts at risk the job security of 235,000 staff of British Telecom. It equally puts at risk the jobs of 70,000 people employed in British telephone equipment manufacturing. It will open the floodgates to the importation of telecommunications equipment from Japan, Sweden and the United States with no reciprocal trading agreements.
Serving on the Standing Committee has been an unusual and a positively extraordinary experience. It was unusual because in a Bill that embraces 84 clauses, six schedules and 149 pages, its very centre is encapsulated in the first lines which seek powers for the Secretary of State to appoint a Director General of Telecommunications and establish an Office of Telecommunications. Everything else in the Bill flows from that. Every clause, schedule and page hinges on those first lines. The Leader of the House complained that we had spent eight sittings discussing clause 1. I submit that the Committee could have taken 20 sittings and not done full justice to the implications of the first line of clause 1, irrespective of its other features.
I said that serving on the Committee had been an extraordinary experience. It was a bit like riding a bicycle because the scene changed so constantly and dramatically as we went along. On Second Reading we were promised that we would see the licence that had been granted to Mercury and would be granted to other would-be licensees. That undertaking was never honoured. The Committee was in session for nearly a month and no licence appeared, despite the undertaking given by the Minister of State.
What we were given on 25 January was a document entitled "Ringing the Changes". The campanologists in the Department of Industry had been busy and had produced


what they described as the Department of Industry's views on the licence. We never saw the licence, but we got a 16-page document describing the Department of Industry's views on it. Paragraph 21 of the document contained a proposal that appears nowhere in the Bill, that there should be the possibility of eliminating 30,000 British Telecom telephone operators. We had never seen that proposal in the Bill, but suddenly it appeared in the document. Is there any difficulty in understanding why the Committee wanted to examine in detail the implications of documents that were made available? We had the "Ringing the Changes" document and the draft licence and, as we progressed, we were bombarded with another 16 pages from the junior Minister, who outlined the guidelines for the Secretary of State and the Director General contained in clause 3. I accept that the Minister was seeking to be helpful. Then we had hurled at us Professor Littlechild's report encompassing another 42 pages of closely-reasoned argument which demonstrated that the Department of Industry had got the Bill all wrong. Is it really possible to criticise a Committee that was bombarded with documents at such a rate and on such a scale and to mount a guillotine on the basis of that experience?
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) made a less than brief speech on one occasion. I do not know how many people have read my hon. Friend's distinguished speech. It is a classic in itself. It deals with the whole of the Littlechild report. That was something that the Committee never had the opportunity to do. My hon. Friend's skilful analysis was a service not only to the Committee but to Ministers in helping them to understand the Littlechild report and to the nation as a whole.
Hon. Members serving on the Committee received a mountain of advice and representations from British Telecom, the Post Office Users National Council, the Consumer Council, the Association of District Councils, companies within the Telephone Equipment Manuacturers Association, the nation's farmers, individual constituents living in rural areas, the Post Office Engineering Union and the Union of Communication Workers, all opposed to the Bill. I am aware of no hon. Member serving on the Committee who received a letter in support of the Bill. I have received no letters supporting a Bill for which the Government have no mandate. The whole debate about a guillotine is bogus. The Government know that it is bogus. This is a wretched Bill that should be rejected.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris). All hon. Members can, I think, agree that serving on the Bill in Committee has been an extraordinary experience. Back in the halcyon days before Christmas, when one was unencumbered by Standing Committee duties and observing one's usual philosophy of keeping a low profile in Second Reading debates, it was difficult to imagine that a foreign affairs hand like myself would be serving on the Telecommunications Bill Standing Committee. Who would have dreamt that, at four o'clock in the morning, one would be appointed, and remain, honorary legal adviser to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding)?
I do not wish to make a constituency speech or even a speech about the Bill. I wish to make a speech about the system and what is wrong with it. I claim a certain enitlement to do so, in the sense that I associated myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) when he first raised this issue in Committee. Anything that I say is not intended as an argument against the hallowed system that we follow. Sometimes, however, it may be too hallowed. One recalls the words of the then Leader of the Opposition and outgoing Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who advised new hon. Members in the first Session of Parliament that the system might seem crazy but that it they stayed around they would find that it made a certain amount of sense. The only sense that I have been able to discover, following some years in the House, is that the system enables these debates to take place. It enables hon. Members, depending upon which side of the House they are sitting at the time, to make the appropriate speech. Above all, it enables the Government of the day to drive through their legislation without proper challenge.
Nothing that I say, however, derogates from the validity of the debates that have taken place in Standing Committee. In a crazy way, the debates have been remarkably valid. They have touched upon many issues. Hon. Members on both sides have brought about a virtual redrafting of clause 3. This shows that there has been some sense in our proceedings.
While the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has been "going on a bit"—to coin a wise phrase, which I gather appeared in his local newspaper—it was a skilful exercise. Whenever the hon. Gentleman was out of order, he quickly came back into order. My criticism is that the skills and talents of the hon. Gentleman, which he exercised both in government and in opposition, should have had the effect, if not of exhausting hon. Members, of leaving the Committee still on clause 3 after 110 hours of debate. An hon. Gentleman with his skill and talent, under another system, would have been able to fight the Bill root and branch on the Floor of the House, with the chance for his remarks to be heard on radio and to attract public attention. Let us perform the party bit down here in the Chamber, but it is surely possible to concentrate our talents more effectively upstairs in Committee.
The Bill is extremely complicated. It raises a largely new concept. It creates a private monopoly out of a public one. However, the impression left, as the hours have unfolded, is that all hon. Members, including, if I dare say so, my hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench, have been wondering how that private monopoly should be controlled. Although dragged reluctantly to the Bill, I have, in a masochistic way, enjoyed it. To the innocent like myself, the Bill gives every impression of a rushed job. One is left with the impression that the Government of the day should give more preparation to major legislation.
In my Back Bench ignorance, I do not know the inner workings of Cabinet Committees, but they should perhaps devote more attention to these matters. One has the feeling that the very able team that has been trying to present the Bill, backed by the skills within the Department, have nevertheless had to bring it forward in a slightly speedier and more rushed fashion than it would have liked. Hon. Members should not find themselves facing a guillotine. Legislation should be presented in a more organised fashion.
At the same time as hon. Members have been discussing matters inextricably linked with the licence, negotiations on the licence have been going on with BT. Hon. Members do not know what the outcome will be. We have been given guidelines by the Department about the form of the licence. It is crucial to the control of the new private monopoly that we are creating that we know about the licence. It is also important to our constituents, urban and rural.
When one is locked in a party political battle in Committee, It is unfortunate when relevant things happen outside. The Littlechild report adds to the impression that the philosophy of the Bill was incomplete when it was drafted. The central question is how control should be exercised. It is clear that that was being decided as we were discussing the Bill in Committee. That is unsatisfactory.
I am not making party points, one way or the other. I am not trying to play to the Opposition or to this side of the House; I am just talking about the system. Witness to that is the fact the guideline clause, clause 3, which is recognised as vital, will be completely different by the time we have finished with it. I am grateful to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench for conceding various amendments, which will no doubt mean that it will be a better clause.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Temple-Morris: I am not giving way. My hon. Friend had abundant chance to speak in Committee.
I want to address myself to the system to which the Bill is being submitted. I do not want to go on any longer than I have to, but it is important that these things should be put on the record. I have become a member of the Standing Committee on the Bill under a system which means that I had inadequate preparation, inadequate knowledge and inadequate opportunity to play a constructive part in considering one of the most important pieces of legislation before the House. It is confrontational.
I do not want to blame my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton), but it is Whip control in the loosest possible way. No one could control my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). At the same time, he and the rest of us are put in the position of letting the side down if we do not agree with the Government. It is an invidious position if we wish not only to say critical words but to exercise critical votes. Also, we are put in the position of somewhat jeopardising our own future if we go fully into action against the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills has been fearless, and I respect his treatment of the Bill. He is the only member of the Committee who has repeatedly said that it is our duty as a collective Committee to consider the Bill.
The Opposition of the day, whoever they may be, are largely powerless. The Opposition could do much good by promoting discussion, but at the end of the day they are forced to use time as their only weapon. That is unhealthy. Regrettably, the system permits the Bill to be powered through the House. If the Bill were to be examined properly, it would take longer than this Session, or certainly longer than the Government are prepared to give it.
The guillotine is unsatisfactory. I am tempted to vote against it or to abstain, but the honourable course is not

to sit back and rely on the votes of others if I am to get to bed at a proper time and not spend night after night in Committee. Although the system is wrong, I am prepared to accept it. There is great responsibility on the Opposition to ensure, once the guillotine is enforced, that many clauses of the Bill do not remain undiscussed. That would be the ultimate condemnation of the system which we are perpetuating.
I sound a precautionary note. The Government of the day, whoever they may be, lamentably have a vested interest in the system. The Bill is a good example of how a Government can bring in a piece of legislation quickly, discuss things outside and rely upon the good nature of hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and myself to get it through. This will not last. More and more Back Benchers will say that enough is enough when it comes to Committee sittings going on after midnight. I hope that my client, as I sometimes call him, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme will have a sneaking sympathy with what I am saying.
If the Standing Committee system is to continue, we must have a sensible timetable from the outset. The party political arguments should be dealt with on Second Reading, Report and Third Reading. Let the Opposition create as much fuss as they want then. No one knows that we are sitting in Committee all night. Nobody could care less about it. Our wives deserve to see us and the great world outside beckons us and should be enjoyed.
There is scope for examination of the system of Select Committees from the point of view of superintending Bills. It might go against the Government of the day and limit their power, but it would increase the power of Back Benchers. The Bill is a classic instance where I, for one, would have liked to have the opportunity to question Sir George Jefferson in a Select Committee atmosphere and to have asked Professor Littlechild why he did not agree with Professor Walters. Relying upon the pronounced view of academics, whether it is to the Right or the Left, is a dubious exercise on Government legislation. That is an aside.
I hope that I have said enough to show my deep dissatisfaction with the position in which I find myself. Dare I say humbly that it is a dissatisfaction that applies to the House as a whole? I have much sympathy with those who say that the Bill deserves more discussion. I am out of sympathy with the system, which has dictated the way in which the Bill has had to be discussed.

Mr. David Penhaligon: In the early part of December, within a few days two Bills were given Second Readings—the Energy Bill, on which I am officially the Liberal party's spokesman, and the Telecommunications Bill, on which I have the same job. I recall that at the time I decided that it would be sensible to be more interested in the Energy Bill than the Telecommunications Bill. Clearly, my decision was right as that Bill progressed satisfactorily.
I have been a Member of the House for eight and a half years. I do not know how many guillotine motions have been moved in that time. My one distinction in this debate is that I have always sat on the Opposition side of the House and have therefore tended to vote against guillotine motions.
The process is ridiculous. If the public realised how much complicated and important legislation is implemented and yet no time has been spent on major parts of it in the House of Commons, they would be appalled, especially when they are told how many hours have been spent on Bills. Some sort of pre-legislation hearing is required for such Bills so that hon. Members may question responsible persons. The time should be limited, but hon. Members should have the opportunity to pose questions, such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris). At the same time, there ought to be reasonable progress.
The tragedy with the guillotine system is that, as time has gone on, a belief has arisen that the Opposition have not done their job properly in opposing a Bill unless in the end they force the Government to move a guillotine motion. That is not unique to this Opposition. The same nonsense applies no matter which party is in power. I suspect that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), whom one admires for several achievements, is told by his friends within the Post Office Engineering Union that he must oppose the Bill, and that they judge the triumphs when the Government have to move a guillotine motion. In a way, I congratulate him on that.
However, as someone who has so far been perpetually in opposition, I am concerned about the quality of the legislation going through the House. I hope that, on the whole, hon. Members improve legislation by discussing it, but volumes of legislation are passed without any discussion.
We could try several things. For some time, one of my favourite solutions has been to limit the time a Committee member may speak, as that might help to speed up the proceedings. There is a limit to the number of hon. Members on either side of the Committee. If each hon. Member is allowed 15 minutes in which to speak, the time will come when every hon. Member has had his say.
There could also be a time limit on clauses. However, if we were to allow two, 10 or 20 hours per clause, we could run the risk that, if a forthcoming amendment was embarrassing to the Government, they—or at least their Back Benchers—might be tempted suddenly to make long speeches to stop the Opposition moving the said amendment. That happened during debate on the Scotland Bill, when we got near amendments that the Government did not want discussed. Suddenly one would find that the preceding amendment was being discussed at great length by Government Members.
The present arrangement is appalling and ridiculous. The House is failing in its duty to the nation to investigate, survey and question legislation. It has been said that the Government do not have a mandate for the Bill. I accept that mention of it was not included in their manifesto. However, the Government have not had a mandate for any of their actions since the election. They obtained only 44 per cent. of the vote, so 56 per cent. of the people voted against them. Since becoming a Member of Parliament, I have always sat on the side that most people supported at the general election. The odd thing is that those who gain 56 per cent. of the vote end up in opposition.
However, the Bill was not included in the Conservative party's manifesto. The importance of a manifesto commitment has been raised to such a level that if

something is not covered in its 120 pages or so—which probably less than 0·25 per cent. of the electorate read before casting their vote — it is argued that the Government do not have a mandate. In this case, that is not a particularly good argument anyway, because the Government have said that the Bill will not be implemented until after the general election. In an odd way, that is a not unwelcome way of introducing controversial legislation, because the public can examine the final Bill and its proposals. I say that, having already told the Government that I am against the legislation, although the Liberal party supported the previous Bill.
I gather that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has been awkward in Committee and is likely to achieve the object of most Government Members, when they are awkward, of ensuring that he is never again put on a Standing Committee. It is nearly a standard practice of the House that if an hon. Member on the Government side does not want to do much Committee work, he should vote against the Government a few times in the first Committee with which he is lumbered and he will never again be asked to serve. I know of several hon. Members who in private boast that they succeeded in doing that and have had no further trouble. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having done that early in his career.
This is not one of Parliament's best days. There are times when I think that we should be extremely proud to be Members of Parliament. However, none of us can be proud of the procedure that has developed and is now part of our detailed consideration of legislation. It is time that we tried something else. I cannot guarantee that it will be better, but we must see whether we can improve the present appalling arrangement. We have reached the ludicrous state that Oppositions do not believe that they have done their job unless they have reduced the Government of the day to moving a guillotine motion. It is appalling and stupid that the House should have allowed itself to reach that stage.

Mr. Tony Marlow: As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said when introducing the motion, we are talking about a major and important Bill.
As the whole House and the country realise, we are on the threshold of a telecommunications revolution. In future, people will not only have telephones in their houses, but will rightly have the opportunity to benefit from a whole range of equipment and apparatus. In addition to cable to homes, there will be other means by which messages can be communicated. With a new situation, we need new people, new ideas, new organisations and a new structure.
The Bill seeks to bring telecommunications into that new structure, so that if we get things right there will be a large and effective expansion of the facilities available to all our people, including ordinary working and professional people. We shall have more facilities and more choices will be available to consumers. If we are successful—and if the Bill goes through we shall be—there will be more jobs and employment in telecommunications.
If I have one complaint so far about the Opposition, it arises from the contemptible scare that they have been putting about that the Bill will cause a cut in jobs. The Bill


will do no such thing, but instead will lead to an expansion of facilities and jobs within the telecommunications industry. That is one reason why I welcome it.
The second reason for my belief that this is a major and important Bill is that we are taking new strides towards public ownership. Some people would call it privatisation, but we are talking about real public ownership. The Bill is a forerunner and prototype of what the Government will do when they are re-elected. That is very important.
As the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) said, the Bill involves a clash of rival philosophies. When Conservative Members talk about public ownership, we mean individuals and workers owning shares in enterprises, as has happened so successfully in the National Freight Corporation. When the Opposition talk about public ownership, they mean that when they are in government they will get their clammy hands on some of the major parts of our industry. They mean industry being run by bureaucracy and by the Civil Service. They call that public ownership, but it is really ownership and control by officials, vested interests and small cabals. It is manipulation by those with political interests closest to their hearts. Things are done in local constituencies because they believe that they will benefit in those constituencies at the next election.
Conservative Members are talking about public ownership by the people, so that the people have far greater control over their working lives and environment. That is why the Bill is fundamental and important. The Opposition know that their methods cannot and will not work. One of their reasons for opposing the Bill is that they are frightened, because they know that our way will work.
We have had more than 100 hours of debate in Committee. If there has been any serious discussion, it has been incidental. My hon. Friends on the Front Bench have, of course, been serious throughout, but the purpose of others has been different and otherwise. Time has been wasted. If there is any true debate, it will be after the guillotine motion and not before it. That has often been the case with important Bills. Time before the guillotine is time wasted. If we could have a timetable motion at the beginning of such important Bills, the total amount of time spent on the Bill would be time well spent and so much time would not be wasted.

Mr. John Grant: I wonder why the hon. Gentleman did not support that proposition when I made it at the outset.

Mr. Marlow: I listened with interest to what the hon. Gentleman said at the outset, but we are talking about something that is fundamental to parliamentary procedure. Now is the time to debate what to do in future, rather than when the Committee is under way. However, I sympathised with what the hon Gentleman said.
To an extent, the House suffers from the incubus of custom. Many of our traditions—as the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) said—are fine, excellent and splendid. I agree with him. However, we are wrong now and it is time that something was done. Of course the Government have an honourable objective—to get their business through. They believe, and have believed on other such Bills, that to get their business through they must plough through a long series of nights and evenings, hour by hour, clocking up the time, until they feel that they can decently come to the House to ask for a timetable

motion. Government have done it in the past. That is what we are borne down with. That is what we have been through on this Bill. Please God that we find a better system.
The Opposition have a different objective, which is to prove to their supporters that the dreadful measure that the Government are thrusting upon the country will be fought tooth and nail, line by line, in some valiant battle against the Government. They believe, and they tell their supporters, that they will obstruct the Government and stop the Government and that the legislation will never reach the statute book. But, strangely, it always does. Strangely, throughout the whole charade, the Opposition have known that it will reach the statute book. They know what will happen. they have been play-acting, just as the Government, when in opposition, were no doubt playacting also. I do not blame them, because that is the system—the incubus of custom from which we are suffering.
We have had time wasting—a printers benefit: firstly, the Government's motivation; secondly, the Opposition's; and, thirdly, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding)—let us say the opposition within the Opposition, the O'Grady rather than the Tatchell tendency. The hon. Gentleman started a speech last week—I think that it was last week, but time passes fairly quickly on these matters, or slowly as the case may be—at 11.43 am on a Tuesday. He finished it at 5.13 am on the Wednesday, some 18 tong hours later. The hon. Gentleman will say that he was making a serious speech throughout and was addressing himself seriously to the amendment under discussion. But why, then, did the hon. Gentleman say regularly within his speech such words as: "I welcome his intervention. Never let it be said that I would not give way." The hon. Gentleman, throughout his speech, was fishing for interventions in such a way as to make the Danish fishing fleet look timorous and reluctant by comparison.
Look at the hon. Gentleman's speech in the Official report—120 columns, 9,000 lines of print and 81,000 words. The hon. Gentleman will say that he continued for so long, only because of massive interventions. He will not pick on me now, but in Committee he would say that the hon. Member for Northampton, North was always intervening and that he could not get on with his speech—that he could never make a paragraph without interruption. I have been through his speech with a fine-toothed comb. I have added it up line by line. I admit my guilt. I spoke for 255 lines out of 9,000 lines—less than 3 per cent.—and for less than 20 minutes of the 11½ hours. Who is the guilty man, the hon. Gentleman or I?
The hon. Gentleman will doubtless say that although I spoke within his speech for less than 3 per cent. of the time, he had to address himself to my interventions and answer my questions. Throughout that long marathon, I did not receive one answer. It was a daunting, interesting and amazing performance. I understand that in the cellars of the Post Office Engineering Union people are beavering away—perhaps a latter-day Benjamin Britten, or Schoenberg, as it is a little more discordant than that—drawing up a new ballad based on the ballad of Tom Bowley, of which right hon. and hon. Members may know something. I understand that it goes something like this:

"Here a sheer hulk, lies poor John Golding,
Darling of the POEU.
No more we'll hear his tempest howling,


The guillotine has broach'd him too.
John never from his words departed,
His virtues were so rare;
His members were many, and true hearted,
His Poll was kind and fair"—

that is true—

"And then he'd speak so blithe and longly,
Ah! many's the time and oft;
But mirth is turned to melancholy,
For poor John's had the chop."

That is why I wish to support the guillotine motion. Interesting though that marathon may have been—I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for it—it really is an abuse of the procedures of the House. We must reform our Committee procedures. I agree virtually wholly with my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris). After the Bill is passed, after the debate, please may we look afresh at our proceedings?

Mr. John Golding: I appear to have made my mark on the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). I make no apology for having opposed the Bill strongly. It is a tawdry and obnoxious Bill. Both its purposes—privatisation and creaming off—are to the disadvantage of the domestic customer and will bring higher rentals and charges.
The Bill will do irrevocable harm to the private British telecommunications manufacturing industry—losing jobs and profits to overseas countries. The Bill spells disaster for many thousands who work for British Telecommunications, bringing as it does a threat to job security, pensions, promotion and job satisfaction.
The Bill is opposed by a unique alliance that includes women's institutes, parish councils and large manufacturers, such as Corfield, as well as the Post Office Engineering Union, and other BT unions. I declare my interest, which has already been declared for me by other hon. Members, as a member of the POEU.
The Bill is supported by the greedy people, and very greedy they are. It is supported by the City, whose other policies are destroying Britain's industrial base. It is supported by the importers, who prefer to make a quick buck at the expense of British jobs than to take British interests into account. It is supported by those in the top management of British Telecommunications, who are playing a discreditable part in this episode—no doubt seeing rich pickings for themselves in running what could become the richest firm in Europe.
The Government say that they need the guillotine because of our opposition to the Bill. That is humbug. From the start, they have tried to push it through quickly. That is why it is in such a mess. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) made a powerful point against the Government when he referred to the muddle that the Bill is in because of the way in which the Government have tried to rush it through. The Bill has rush and muddle in its drafting and preparation. That is stamped all over it.
I have never seen a Bill handled so incompetently in all my time in the House. The Leader of the House reminded us that we passed the Act in 1981. He commended the short time that we spent on it. Does he know that clause 2 of the Bill repeals the 1981 Act? That Act has lasted for only a year. The moral is that we did not discuss it enough.

What virtue is there in an Act passed so quickly when, within a year, the Government say that they intend to repeal it? It shows the muddle that the Government are in with their telecommunications policy.
The Bill was proposed in a flimsy White Paper in July 1982. Only six weeks were given for discussion and consultation, and that at the height of the holiday period. That is one reason why we are having to debate it in detail now. The Government did not give the time, before presenting the Bill, to remove inconsistencies from it.
The Bill was given a Second Reading on 29 November and put into Committee on 9 December. After only five hours' debate, in which no long speeches were made, notice was given of a new sittings motion. The Leader of the House must explain why that was. It was not because of any long speeches; it was because of the Government's wish to clear the decks for a general election. That is the reason for today's guillotine motion. The motion is also to prevent the exposure of the lack of detailed preparation by Ministers in Committee.
The Ministers have put up a poor performance in Committee. The Minister of State refused to let us see the BT memorandum and articles of association, although the Secretary of State claimed that they would prevent a change of control. That is an important point, although the Minister of State says that it was only marginal. However, it is crucial to those who have the interests of BT at heart.
The Minister of State has failed to let us see draft licences. I could give one quotation after another of solemn assurances by the Minister that we would see those licences. Now, after an intervention from BT, the Minister of State has got cold feet and, instead of letting us see the licences, has produced only the Department of Industry's draft proposals. As the Minister has acknowledged, we cannot have a real debate without seeing the draft licences.
As the hon. Member for Leominster pointed out, clause 3 is in an unholy mess. The incoherent and bungling efforts of the Under-Secretary one night to try to explain it were a disgrace and unworthy of detailed and long criticism by Labour Members. The failure of the Ministers to reply to the questions has been topped only by the Minister refusing even to get to his feet in one debate.
The practice of Ministers, after we have put detailed questions, of coming back two weeks later to reply is not conducive to efficient and effective debate. They should get more on top of their own legislation. No wonder Government supporters have been visibly embarrassed at the conduct of proceedings on the Bill.
I understand why the hon. Member for Leominster, out of party loyalty, has supported his Front Bench. His speech today illustrates the difficulty that he has been in because of the way that the legislation has been bungled. Worst of all is the way that the Minister introduced the Littlechild report and his response to that report on Monday 7 February, long after we had started debating a clause to which it related.
The report was commissioned on 28 October and received by the Government on 17 January. However, we were allowed to continue to sit in the evenings debating clause 3, even though the Minister knew that he would accept a large part of the report which changed the basis of Government policy. Those debates were a waste of time because the Government changed their policy in midstream. The Government have wasted parliamentary time.


They have not played straight with either their own supporters or the Opposition in their conduct over this measure.
The following morning, in Committee, the Minister of State bitterly upset the Opposition by moving the closure motion after an hour on a motion that permitted reference to the difficulties created by the sudden emergence of the Littlechild report. It was against that background that I made my 11¼-hour attack on the Government. It would have been longer, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) begged me to allow the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) to get into the debate. The argument was not exhausted.
I make no apology. The taking away of the exclusive privilege of prime instrument and the opening up of PABX maintenance is crucial to the livelihood of Post Office Engineering Union workers for whom I speak. Their livelihood is more important to me than whether Conservative Members go home to their beds and wives. They introduced this legislation and they are supporting a Government who are destroying the livelihood of the people I represent. That is the most important thing as far as the Opposition are concerned.
The other proposals in the Littlechild report suggest such creaming off measures as giving Mercury access to the international network and reducing restrictions on the resale of BT circuits. These, too, are detrimental to the interests of the workers in BT. When the interests of the POEU are so clearly damaged, it is my right and duty to protest as vigorously as I can.
The guillotine is about the lack of stamina of Conservative Members. On Second Reading I promised a fight in the trenches, but I did not realise that just two or three minor broadsides would put the Government into such rapid retreat. What is worse, I did not think that instead of blaming their own shell shock, they would blame their wives and would go to the Whips and the Leader of the House to complain.
The Whip is the first anarchist I have met. For an hon. Gentleman on the Government Benches to say that he spoke for 20 minutes in the speech of an Opposition Member shows that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) is an anarchist. He sits there, not taking any notice of the way that his hon. Friends impede the business by impeding my speeches.
I have been astonished at the way that Conservative Members have blamed their wives for their lack of fortitude and fight. Of course they do not want to sit in Committee because it is a humiliating experience for the Government Front Bench and for them. They well understand that the Ministers do not know what they are introducing and cannot defend what they are proposing.
The hon. Gentleman who gains most by our dwelling on clause 3 is the Under-Secretary, who still does not know what clause 4 means. It will be a disaster for him when we come to debate it. I am faced with a group of whimpering schoolboys; and the only man among them seems to be the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) who faces this experience with fortitude.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman is trying to do the impossible—justify the absurd length of time that he spent on his speech. Will he tell the House why he took so much of the time of the Committee talking about the school mistress career of the Chairman of the Committee or about the sweet-eating habit of my hon. Friend the Minister of

State and other such absurd items that took him on through the night and that were completely divorced from the subject that we were debating?

Mr. Golding: Miss—I nearly said Miss Fookes. If I were to answer that question, I would, in effect, be critical of the Chair. The Chair has conducted our proceedings extremely competently in Committee, and I would not subscribe to any criticism of it.
On 7 February the Minister, referring to the Littlechild report, said:
there will be opportunities tomorrow and in the coming debate on the Bill to discuss these matters fully. I want them debated extensively. We should start tomorrow."—[Official Report, 7 February 1983; Vol. 36, c. 641.]
Members of the POEU believed that statement as we believed the Minister when he promised us repeatedly that we should see the draft licence. The truth is now clear. The Government want this legislation to enable them to hand over BT to their greedy friends, and they do not mind how they get it. They will get it by passing a guillotine motion, but that does not mean that they have heard the last of us.

Mr. Gerry Neale: It is always a pleasure to be called immediately after the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), if only because it carries with it a guarantee that he has finished his speech. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Government Front Bench have been consistent in their opposition to the Bill. That was made clear publicly on the presentation of the Bill and again on Second Reading. The hon. Gentleman has remained implacably opposed to it, but it is interesting that even he, with his vast knowledge of the subject, changed the degree of intensity of opposition and shortened the length of his contributions following the announcement that a guillotine motion would come before the House.
I must agree with the views of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon)—my hon. Friends will understand how difficult it is to reach that agreement as the hon. Gentleman represents a Cornish constituency—about the consideration of Bills in Committee. I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to take into account the various comments that the hon. Gentleman made, to which I shall address most of my speech.
I agree with the basis of the Bill and with what my hon. Friends are attempting to do. In so doing I declare my interest in telecommunications. I believe sincerely that we cannot continue considering contentious Bills in the present manner. I hope that my right hon. Friend is aware of the widespread support for consideration to be changed in accordance with early-day motion 298, which has support across the parties.
I have no wish to curtail the time that is spent considering contentious Bills. I am more concerned with trying to structure the time to ensure that all parts of contentious Bills are given proper attention. We cannot ignore the trends of past decades. My research tells me that during the 1940s—admittedly they were war years—only three Bills were guillotined. I accept that there were special reasons for that. In the 1950s, six Bills were guillotined. In the 1960s, 13 Bills were guillotined and in the 1970s, 21 Bills were guillotined. If we continue as we are, and bearing in mind that two more Bills will be guillotined today, and if we remember that Governments of each of the two major parties were in power throughout


the decades to which I have referred, we are heading for the guillotining of a minimum of 30 Bills in the 1980s. If the rate continues to increase, the total will be nearer 40.
During this Parliament—I confess that I have been a Member of this place for only this Parliament—the conventions of debate in Committee have clearly been stretched and further stretched. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has been more than honourable in debate in Committee. He has kept to the rules of debate. I do not believe that he is the sort of person who would ever go beyond the rules as they exist. However, it is clear that there is a great deal of public questioning of the wisdom of our system when it permits an hon. Gentleman to speak for so long. The public think less of right hon. and hon. Members, although we admire the hon. Gentleman for his remarkable efforts. Many of us admire him but that does not say much for our procedures.
The general trend is for more guillotining under Governments of both major parties, and even in this Parliament the conventions of debate have been stretched. The hon. Member for Truro said that it was becoming almost a symbol of the strength of opposition to a particularly contentious Bill to stretch the conventions, and I agree with him entirely.
It is said that time is an Opposition's only sanction. That is a questionable argument. It is rather like turning out to play for a football team, finding that the team is not winning and feeling it necessary to try to puncture the ball. We have had a number of examples over recent years of open-ended debates and successful attempts being made to limit them. Previous debates on guillotine motions were open-ended but they are now limited to three hours. Similarly, Standing Order No. 9 debates were open-ended but now they are restricted. The daily Adjournment debates came under the same limitation. Restrictions have been introduced for debates on Consolidated Fund Bills. Although it is only a short time since the Procedure Committee considered these issues, it is time that the usual channels of the Procedure Committee re-examined them. I await the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House with interest.
It seems that the Procedure Committee adduced four reasons why the present procedure should not be altered. It was said that timetabling in advance would not necessarily produce a more balanced consideration of Bills, as it would not be possible to anticipate the points of difficulty that would arise during a Bill's progress. That is rather much to accept now. We have considered only three clauses of the Telecommunications Bill and more than 80 clauses remain to be considered. There is a guillotine motion before us and at any moment, through the usual channels, it will be announced exactly how the remaining clauses will be considered over the next seven days in Committee. If we can do it now, we can do it at the start of a Bill's consideration in Committee. Indeed, we can do it on Second Reading.
Secondly, it was said that when a Bill is timetabled there is less need for the Government to respond to argument because they are usually assured of their Bill after a certain time. The contrary is true. Successive Governments have known that they would guillotine to get their business. It has been suggested that with that knowledge they may have an incentive to indulge in delay as our procedures stand. If, by a guillotine at the start,

Opposition parties are made to take part in a balanced debate, they and Government Members will have the opportunity to criticise all the clauses rather than some of them being allowed to go through by default.
Another argument is that the Opposition may at present legitimately use their power of time to force the Government to make concessions and that if timetabling were general, such powers would be lost. It has been said that that would amount to a significant constitutional development, to the detriment of all non-ministerial Members. That is no longer true. What is happening is that the guillotine is being used after both sides have played for time. No real concessions are being given on that count.

Mr. Henderson: I am following my hon. Friend's speech with great interest. Does he agree that if there were a voluntary understanding about time in the Committee, that would strengthen the Opposition's case when they were looking for concessions? Does he agree that such a short time scale would encourage a Government, who know that they will have to introduce a guillotine to get a Bill through, to believe that there was no point in making any concessions to anyone?

Mr. Neale: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The proof of what he says can be found in the fact that many Bills are agreed voluntarily anyway. Like the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), I am addressing myself principally to the existence of a purely philosophical demand.
The Procedure Committee said that there should be no change because there would then be no pressure on Government supporters to refrain from speaking in debates on guillotined Bills, because, the Committee said, that would eat into the Opposition's time. That gives rise to two points. Surely the House will not try to restrict an hon. Member in Standing Committee in making a speech. We all hope that such a speech would be concise, constructive and relevant. The most important fact is that if the Opposition wanted a guarantee, I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of our procedural management to find a way of allocating time among the parties represented in the Committee.
It is important that, when we consider these matters, we do not merely criticise. We should try to advance some suggestions that can be considered by those who discuss these issues. As I have already said, I am a sponsor of early-day motion 298. Perhaps that is not the right way to examine the problem, but I do not believe that we can go on hiding behind what we try to convince ourselves are the mysteries of this place. People are increasingly directing their attention to what is going on here. New television and radio stations are opening. We are increasingly under scrutiny. We cannot expect the public to understand what is going on here if we continue in this way.
If it is apparent—with respect to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, it almost always is apparent—that, on the presentation of a Bill, the Opposition are implacably opposed to it, and it is not possible to arrive at a programme for consideration of that Bill through the usual channels, a far better way to deal with it is to have a longer Second Reading, coupled with a timetable motion. There could be a two-day, Second Reading-cum-timetable motion debate. Alternatively, the first motion to be considered in Standing Committee could


be a timetable motion which applied to the rest of the consideration of that Bill. It should be clear in that guillotine motion what days would be used for what parts of the Bill. That would enable hon. Members and interested parties outside to prepare their case.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster that we should consider using the Select Committee procedure for contentious Bills. The hon. Member for Truro has suggested restricting the length of speeches. We could easily examine restricting the number of hours that each Committee day takes up. We could consider the minimum, not the maximum, number of days for contentious Bills to ensure that Opposition parties have a proper chance to debate the issues.
The dangers of change to this place are not higher than those of not changing. We must make the changes now and improve our debating procedures. If we do not, I am convinced that the level of disrespect that we attract to ourselves from the public will be such that we shall all suffer. What is more, the legislation that we try to enact will also suffer.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I remind the House that the first of the Front Bench speakers hopes to catch my eye at 6.20 pm and that several hon. Members are waiting to speak.

Mr. John Grant: The speech of the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple Morris) was one of the fairest and most reasonable non-party speeches that I have heard for a long time. It was underlined by the speeches by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) and the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale). There is little in what they said from which I dissent. The hon. Member for Leominster trod with some delicacy on the two Front Benches. He may find as I continue that, by comparison, I am wearing hobnailed boots.
This motion and the one that we shall consider later symbolise much that is wrong with the House. They symbolise the unchanging, unbending, preconceived battle lines and an anachronistic inability to match up to the changing needs of the world around us. There is an introverted, perhaps even an arrogant, refusal to accept that the ordinary people who send us here do not expect us to indulge in our private political fantasies. We are sent here simply to do an effective job of work on their behalf. They do not expect us to demonstate a blinkered refusal to acknowledge that most people outside who are interested in what we do believe that we are crackers to carry on as we do. They are absolutely right to believe that we are crackers.
This House is rightly regarded throughout the free world as the mother of Parliaments. On occasions such as this, however, we set an example which, if more people read the background, would make us a public laughing stock. We criticise British management both in the public and the private sector for incompetence, we rap the trade unions over the knuckles for using outdated and harmful practices, yet we participate in and run a system that is inefficient and archaic to the point of imbecility.
There should be a timetable motion from the outset. I have said that it should be sensible and generous. The Minister of State said that he found that an attractive

suggestion. The official Opposition pulled the bedclothes over their heads. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have since told me privately that they agree in principle with what I said. A couple of Conservative Members who were on the Committee evaded the Whip for long enough to agree with me when I pressed that matter on the sittings motion. By then, the Minister of State's tentative vindication of his dangerous progressive tendencies had been noticed and he was soundly whipped back into line. He also pulled the bedclothes over his head. It is rapidly becoming clear that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree with what I have said, although I regret to say that that will not be reflected in the Division Lobbies tonight.
On Second Reading I warned that it would do the reputation of the House as a legislative workshop a great deal of damage if this massive and complex Bill found its way onto the statute book inadequately considered and ill-digested. I forecast then—it took no crystal ball to do so—that in common with other Bills of major weight and controversy, the early clauses would be discussed ad infinitum and the later clauses would be given no proper consideration. At the beginning of the Committee I suggested that the Whips had pencilled the guillotine date into their diaries. I suggested that we could put our finger on the end of February. I was not far out.
I also said that when the Government introduced the inevitable motion, they would accuse the Opposition of filibustering. They have done that. I said that they would trot out the number of times the Labour Government had used the guillotine, but they did not do so. I suppose that that was because if they had done so, they would have been obliged to mention all the occasions when they opposed guillotines when they were in opposition. I said that the Opposition would offer their simulated horror of what was going on and probably borrow the speech of the last Tory Shadow Minister to oppose a guillotine. There has not been much variation on that.
I refer to the behaviour of the official Opposition and the Government on the Bill. Of course the official Opposition filibustered. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) has been dominating, if not running, the Opposition's affairs on the Bill from the Back Benches. Perhaps he will make "The Guinness Book of Records"; I am not sure about that.
The hon. Gentleman said that he agreed with the spirit of what I had said and that he did not believe that British Telecom's staff would want a filibuster during the early stages of the Bill at the expense of the later clauses. I know him well enough to believe that he meant that. I am sure that he did, but if that is what has happened since, you could fool me. He said that he was provoked into a change of heart. There is something in that argument. I can offer him some comfort because, like other hon. Members, I admire his skill and stamina. I do not accuse him of misusing our existing procedures. The hon. Gentleman was entitled to his prolonged attack. My complaint, like that of other hon. Members who have spoken, is that our crazy procedures permit that to happen. It is an abuse of common sense, of effective government and of effective opposition that we continue in that way and have neither the guts not the gumption to put it right for ourselves.
Everyone knows that it is a phoney war. Everyone knew that the chopper would fall on the Bill. The Minister of State could chortle at the tailor-made excuse that he had for introducing the motion sooner rather than later. From


the Opposition we have had the usual old bunk about an assault on democracy. They have been able to satisfy their gallery that they have been fighting tooth and nail against the Bill in what has really been a glorified public relations exercise. That is what it comes down to.
Let me come to a serious point about provocation and the Government's behaviour. This must be hammered home. I start from the basis that the Bill is a piece of thoroughly unjustified ideology. It is bringing needless uncertainty to a crucial industry to satisfy the public sector bloodlust of the Conservative party. What has become increasingly apparent during the Committee proceedings—I underline what the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme said—has been the gross insult to the House of bringing before it legislation in such a disgraceful state of muddle and unpreparedness. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) gave some support to that view. Ministers have to take the blame for their extraordinary inability to answer straightforward questions in Committee, even from their own unhappy Back Benchers, on many occasions.
However, we know who the real culprit is. It is the Prime Minister, who has been determined to steamroller the Bill through in time for the early election that she may decide is advantageous to her. She wants to clear the decks, as the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme said. This is her showpiece Bill.
If the incompetence shines out, there has been bad faith too. On Second Reading on 29 November I said that the Bill had been cobbled together in a panic and claimed that the draft licence—the key document—would not be available for at least two months. We are well beyond two months now. At the first sitting of the Committee on 9 December, the Minister of State said:
I was asked when we would publish a draft licence. We intend to do so as soon after Christmas as possible—in other words, shortly after Christmas—because I am very conscious that the Committee will want to see the terms of that licence".—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 9 December 1982; c. 9.]
We still have not seen the draft licence. All we have had is the document giving the Department of Industry's views of what should be in it. The Minister of State was setting out to prove the old saying that a verbal contract is not worth the paper that it is written on.
We had trouble in Committee over inadequate guidance notes and the articles of association. We have now had the injection into the proceedings of the Littlechild report, which means substantial changes to the Bill. Everyone agrees that clause 3 is vital, the essence of the Bill. That is where we are now. However, the Minister of State told the Committee at the outset that he trusted that by the last sitting before Christmas we would be debating clauses 6, 7 and 8. That was wishful thinking. If we had reached clauses 6, 7 and 8, much of the extra work would have been wasted. Much of the work that has been done has been wasted. It would have been overtaken by the consequences of the Littlechild report. It is clear from the debates on clause 3 that the report is relevant to what has already gone through in Committee.
Therefore, the Government deserve to be clobbered hard. They have behaved disgracefully. The plain fact is that, whatever the Government's comedy of errors or lack of good faith, call it what one will, the guillotine was always a certainty. The two major parties, for separate reasons, have ensured that. It is not so much a clash of

philosophies, as the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) said—much more a clash of dinosaurs. Hon. Members allow the grisly charade of Government-imposed and Opposition-inspired timetables to continue in Parliament after Parliament against our interests and the wider public interest. We do not allow such things to go on at our respective party conferences. There, the major policy debates are carefully timetabled—some would say too carefully—or stage-managed. However, in the House we operate ridiculous procedures, which give rise to the motion that we are debating, which is largely a waste of valuable parliamentary time.
I mention time, but expense must also be considered. This place costs a packet to run. It is the taxpayers who foot the Bill for all our procedural extravagances and excesses. It is no wonder that so many people outside who bother to consider what we get up to think that we are the inmates of a peculiar asylum. They think that we live on cloud nine and that we are a bunch of self-centred, self-important nincompoops who cannot run our own affairs properly, let alone the affairs of the nation.
We need a major breakthrough. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North mentioned his motion, which more than 100 hon. Members have signed. It urges the Leader of the House to reconvene the Procedure Committee. Many more members of the official Opposition would have liked to sign the motion. As far as I can make out, they must have been warned off by the Whips. I know that many of them agree with it. I went along with the motion, but I am not sure whether it is the best way. There is a danger that it could be a recipe for the pigeonhole.
I was one of a group of junior Ministers in the Labour Government who wanted reforms, particularly on all-night sittings. There were implications for timetabling. That followed the death of Tony Crosland. Many of us believed that the working hours, particularly for Ministers and more so for Cabinet Ministers, were a killer, especially in that finely balanced hung Parliament. I acted at the time as a shop steward for that group of junior Ministers and wrote on their behalf to the then Leader of the House, now the Leader of the Opposition. We asked him to try to get all-party agreement to modest changes to take effect after the general election. From the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), typically woolly and indecisive, we received the response that it was a matter for the Procedure Committee. Nothing happened.
We should have assurances now that something will happen. It might be best if one or other party—perhaps the alliance would like to consider it—thought about putting something in its manifesto on that basis. It should not be primarily a matter of party concern in that narrow sense. This is primarily a House of Commons matter but it cannot be decided in practice without agreement between the parties. I hope that the parties will commit themselves to honour such an agreement after an election. With the best will in the world, the Procedure Committee could not reach such an understanding. My personal preference would be for an all-party round table conference to be set up urgently by the Leader of the House to try to hammer out an agreement on those lines. I hope that the Minister of State will convey that suggestion to the Leader of the House—perhaps he will refer to the point in his reply—and that the Leader of the House will respond positively to it. Such a move would be welcome on both sides of the House.
I cannot advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Government. The Government have sorely mishandled the Bill, and so far they have not offered any initiative towards any of the desirable reforms which Members of both sides of the House want. On the narrow merits of the case, I am more tempted to vote with the Opposition. However, whatever the superficial short-term justification for it may be, their behaviour cannot be squared with progress towards a more rational and sensible conduct of our affairs. For that reason, and to show our distaste and our protest, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will deliberately abstain on the guillotine motion.
I am sure that Conservative Members would be reluctant to embarrass the Government, but those who wish to bring the House into the modern world could now show that they mean business and do a job not so much for this Parliament as for Parliaments to come. They should seriously consider emphasising their concern and their protest by refusing to join in such a farcial vote.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman is advising his hon. Friends to abstain on the timetable motion?

Mr. Grant: Yes.

Mr. Baker: On Second Reading, the hon. Gentleman said that the one thing that we needed was a timetable motion. We are now bringing one forward. Is there no principle by which the hon. Gentleman's party is prepared to stand? He has advocated and urged this move from the beginning. His behaviour is typical of that of the SDP and the alliance on a whole range of policies.

Mr. Grant: I have rarely been subjected to such an extraordinary intervention. I noticed that the Minister of State was conferring with his hon. Friend during my speech. I can only conclude that he missed most of it. I explained clearly and categorically why I consider that the Government have behaved disgracefully over the Bill. I explained that, at the beginning, the Government had an opportunity to accept my proposition for an agreed timetable, not a timetable such as the Government have now introduced, condensing the latter part of the Bill in concertina form so that whereas the early clauses were discussed ad infinitum, the later clauses will not be discussed adequately.
No doubt the Minister of State intervened because he was getting worried. He has heard the views of some Conservative Back Benchers and he knows how worried they are about the practices and procedures of the House. Let me reassure those Back Benchers that the Government would suffer nothing worse than inconvenience if they lost the guillotine tonight—they would get their Bill in the end, albeit slightly delayed—but the shock would be severe. We should then be on the way to a long overdue change and to a reform which could only improve the reputation of this House in such matters, which has been thoroughly unsatisfactory for far too long. I hope that the House will grasp this opportunity.

Mr. David Madel: The hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) referred at the beginning of his speech to a structured timetable and to what happened when the Bill started in Committee. I agree that it is a pity that we could not vote there and then on a master plan to deal with the clauses of the Bill between

December and March. We could not do that as there was no opportunity to vote on a plan to get the Bill through with reasonable consideration, but I am sure that if such a proposal had appeared on the amendment paper the hon. Gentleman would have had the support not only of many Conservative Members, but also of the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) who opposes the Bill as strongly as the hon. Member for Islington, Central and the official Opposition.
Very little progress has been made on the Bill, despite the three all-night sittings. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), I shall be brief, and I shall deal with the structures and systems rather than going into the business of the Bill yet again.
At the beginning of proceedings in Committee I said that it should be perfectly possible for an Opposition party vigorously to oppose a Bill and to take plenty of time about it, but not to run the Bill almost into the sand so that a guillotine became inevitable. I mentioned the Employment Protection Act 1975, the Dock Work Regulation Act 1976 and the present Opposition's opposition to the Employment Act 1980.
One short speech in the Committee on this Bill, had the example been followed by others, sums up the position. On 3 February, the hon. Member for Caernarvon introduced his amendment No. 52 to clause 3. It dealt with the provision of rural telephones. The hon. Gentleman began his speech at about 12.15 pm. He could have had an absolute field day, trawling through his constituency complaining about the dangers inherent in the possible lack of rural telephones. He could have gone up, down and round Snowdon, but he did not choose to do so. Instead, he made a very compact speech ending at about 12.57 pm. The proceedings then continued as follows:

Mr. McWilliam: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Caernarvon—
It being One o'clock THE CHAIRMAN adjourned the Committee".—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 3 February, 1983; c. 724.]
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Caernarvon is not present. He is a strong opponent of the Bill and he could have detained the Committee for hours, but he chose not to do so. If other opponents of the Bill had followed his example, they could have vigorously opposed the Bill and propounded their amendments without running on and on. In other words, what we need from now on are Caernarvon standards rather than endlessly running the Bill into the sand just because particular clauses are not liked.
The all-night sittings did Parliament and our reputation no good. Nor, I believe, did they greatly impress the many people who have expressed interest in the Bill, who have pressed papers into our hands and suggested meetings to discuss the way in which we should proceed.
The procedural reform that I wish to see is the following. I believe that the Select Committee on Industry and Trade should have started to consider the outlines of the Bill in October and produced an interim report on how the Bill might be improved, strengthened or altered. Other Select Committees, when they put their minds to it, can produce quick but thorough interim reports on Government legislation or action.
I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Blayden (Mr. McWilliam) is present, as he and I are members of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts which produced a quick but thorough interim report on biotechnology, which affects this country and has


important implications for the Department piloting this Bill through the House. In my view, the Select Committee on Industry and Trade could have done the same. It would have benefited us. People who wished to make representations about the Bill would have had the opportunity to do so in the informal evidence sessions which I believe are a great strength and a great improvement in our procedures, rather than hurriedly pressing pieces of paper into our hands and asking for hurried discussions in the Corridor on or after the day's proceedings had been completed.
I believe that strengthening the Select Committee system would have been a better way to proceed. In an interesting article in today's Financial Times, headed
British Parliamentary procedure of guillotines—and charades",
the House of Commons is compared with Congress. When Congress begins to examine legislation it is much longer before Bills are actually considered. The article states:
Proposals are, more often than not, substantially changed in the process, so that Congressmen have a creative role compared with the largely passive function of MPs.
That sums it all up. We want a more creative role. We do not like the passive role that we have in considering Bills, and we want to change it. There is a great ripple of unease in the House about this and other Bills and the way in which we conduct our proceedings.
The way to do it is there. We spend enough time in the House talking about more consultation, communication, partnership and bringing people together in industry to widen discussion, yet the House of Commons waddles towards making procedural changes and improvements. It has the means in its hands: by strengthening the Select Committee system we would have avoided all the difficulties in the 115 rather non-productive hours that we have had on the Bill.
If that sort of behaviour continues, in my view the proper use of parliamentary time is ruined. The demands of constituents, Select Committees and other parliamentary activities are increasing year by year. It is utterly wrong that all our other activities should be thrown out of gear because of the time taken by the Bill. We must reform the system, as there are some Bills that should be born with guillotines round their necks. The Telecommunications Bill 1983 is one of them. It could have been different if the Select Committee on Industry and Trade had looked at it. Alas, it has not been so and that is why the timetable motion is essential and inevitable.

Mr. Stan Thorne: I do not want to go down the path taken by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) about substituting stronger Select Committees to remedy the position in which we found ourselves on the Telecommunications Bill 1983. Much of what the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) said, which was followed by other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale), makes considerable sense on the subject of the procedure for considering Bills.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North did not mention that the increase in the use of the guillotine has taken place over 30 years when there has been a tremendous increase in legislation. Unfortunately, during that time there has been no attempt by either Front Bench to address

themselves to the problem of what increased legislation means in terms of Committee and House procedure. That is the problem that we face. In reality, no changes have taken place.
We are debating a guillotine. One welcomes the comments by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), that apparently the next Conservative manifesto will address itself to supporting public ownership. That is novel. I await it with considerable interest.
The Leader of the House referred tonight to all those who will run British Telecom after the passing of the Bill. It implies, as does reference to "public operators" that there will be several companies involved in the industry after the passing of the Bill. We have already discussed them to some extent in Committee. I believe it is a major myth. I do not think it is an accident that the hon. Member for Leominster referred to a "private monopoly". To some extent that is what we shall have in the industry for some time to come. Even with the growth of Mercury there will still be a private monopoly for a considerable period. As I said in Committee, thereafter only a few firms will be involved in the industry.
I want to be as brief as I can because, unlike the hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) who has made the longest speech, I do not want to finish up by not voting; I want to vote against the guillotine and some of my colleagues are anxious to contribute to the debate. I am deliberately curtailing some of the remarks that I intended to make.
I subscribe fully to the view already expressed, that the Government Front Bench has absolutely no right to claim a mandate for its action. The Government did not just get 40 per cent. of the vote at the 1979 election; they received only approximately 33 per cent. of the support of the electorate. Some two thirds of the British people rejected them, either by vote or by abstention. In my view they have no moral right to rule, let alone to legislate.
By this Bill the Government are placing at risk an efficient service that most people in Great Britain recognise is making a social contribution of considerable value. They are doing it for one motive alone: to line the pockets of those who promote Tory rule in Great Britain today. It is probably done with the view that, following the period 1981–82, more firms such as Lucas Industries Ltd, Allied Breweries, Ltd. and Turner and Newall Ltd. will make substantial contributions to Tory party funds as a result of the profits they make in the British telecommunications industry in order to perpetuate Tory rule.
That will come as no surprise, because that is the nature of capitalism, of the private profit motive that Conservative Members displayed in Committee when they had the temerity to make speeches instead of simply intervening in the speech, about which they complain, of my hon Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). They were foolish to intervene and protract his speech.
It is suggested that the Bill will create efficient competition. That is utterly absurd. Conservative Members have been in the business of creating efficient competition most of my life and today at least 4 million people are unemployed. When the Bill is passed, a further 40,000 to 50,000 telecommunications workers will be looking for alternative employment.
We shall also have the serious problem of deciding whether to continue to allow the export of capital which is at present flooding out of Great Britain, or whether we shall look at the import of capital into this industry. As far as I am aware, there are no guarantees in the Bill to prevent capital from entering Great Britain to invest in this industry. It is a blatant misuse of power by Conservative Members and it is therefore the duty of the Opposition to oppose that misuse of power as effectively as we can.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: It is always difficult to follow the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) as he takes us into the black lands of Socialist lost theories. We find it extremely difficult to gather our thoughts and pursue the arguments. It was an extraordinary admission by the hon. Gentleman that he could not conceive that profits could be made if a service is provided, whereas most Conservative Members see service as a fundamental prerequisite of profit. We conducted much of the debate in Committee trying to educate Opposition Members in the fairly basic proposition of civility, service and profits and the general way in which they may advance the interests of ordinary consumers such as ourselves, our families and our constituents.
Before I surrender my place to the Front Bench spokesmen, I must say that I am a reluctant supporter of guillotines, if only because of the general proposition. It is the right of hon. Members who feel strongly about a measure to argue their corner as fiercely and determinedly as possible. I am a reluctant supporter of the guillotine, because if moderate and sympathetic consideration had been given, along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant), who has now deserted the Chamber, I am not sure that even by 10 March, which is the date when the Bill must return to the Floor of the House, adequate justice could have been done to the Bill.
The Bill is born of two concepts and, as I said in Committee, there are two Bills. The first proposition is that we should regulate a public monopoly. The second is that we should sell a public monopoly to those private interests that wish to own what will then be a private monopoly. As we have discussed only the first Bill, and not very much of that, many of the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) are phoney. He said that the Bill had only two purposes: one was privatisation and the other was the creaming off of profits. However, each member of the Committee recognises that the Bill goes far beyond that. It talks about something that will be very important in the society that I and the Conservative party envisage. It will see us through the coming years more competitively and vigorously so that we can better protect and defend the interests of those whom we represent.
How does one curb the power and influence of an enormous monopoly? That is the essential and crucial question. Clearly, when the Government came to the House with the Bill they had only vague ideas about how one could regulate such a monopoly. They believed that it could be done partially through a licence, but they were not sure how the profits should be controlled. They commissioned a report from a distinguished professor from the west midlands. Professor Littlechild was asked to report by 17 December. Presumably he produced a report that was inadequate, and the Government were in

a position to review his recommendations in the light of his further thoughts on the matter late in January. Essential parts of the Bill were not thought out in detail. For us to discuss it sensibly, to perform our duties to the House, to give it full consideration and to moderate and ameliorate the effects of its conditions, it is essential to know what the Government have in mind and where they are going.
There is no question but that the Government have moved a long way. They have recognised the inadequacies and imperfections of clause 3, which worried every member of the Committee, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris). How can we protect and advance the interests of the consumer? How should functions and duties be laid upon the Director General of Telecommunications? What effect will the Bill have on future competition in this country? Will it stifle the ability of companies to compete against a monopoly? What is the experience of other countries? How are they moving from a highly regulated position to an unregulated position? Why is Britain, which started with the effect of an unregulated position, considering only moderate regulation? Why do the Government shy away so passionately from the control of prices?
Those are fundamental questions that need much discussion and legitimte examination. I am not convinced that even if the Committee had started on 9 December in a spirit of amity it could have discussed all the issues in the first proposition of the Bill, which is the regulatory authority. Not one hon. Member, including my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, is entirely sure about the form that that regulatory authority will take.
It has been difficult to discuss regulation because, as the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme said—no doubt the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) agrees with him—the Opposition are fundamentally opposed to selling off monopolies to potential monopolists. They are so opposed to that proposition that they cannot consider the other important proposition of regulation. We have been in a terrible Scylla and Charybdis position, where there has been no responsible or reasonable discussion of a very important ingredient in the Bill. The opposition has been so total that it has even stifled Labour Members and prevented their putting down improving amendments. It is startling that there are few constructive amendments from the Opposition. Most of the amendments come from Conservative Members, who, with me, are worried about some issues.
There would be more justice in what the Opposition are doing and saying if they took a more structured and reasoned approach. I suspect that there is division among Opposition Members. Some are slightly uneasy about waving the banner solely for the Post Office Engineering Union. There are two representatives of that union on the Committee, who, line by line, have blankly refused to promote discussion of issues that could expand the regulatory control of a monopoly.
One detects in some Back-Bench Members and in the Front Bench spokesmen a sensitivity to the issues, especially about regulating great monopolies that are transferred from public to private ownership. Although the Opposition may maintain that a publicly owned monopoly works in the interests of the consumer or our constituents—few consumers and constituents believe that, and the evidence is against it—they must accommodate the idea that the monopoly will move from public to private ownership. Therefore, one is forced to


address oneself to the basic question about the best way to resurrect or to create a structure to protect those interests.
The Opposition, through their extraordinary folly—I genuinely believe it to be that—have been prepared wilfully to discuss minutiae and to leave aside fundamental issues that will affect the nation for many years to come. They had a big role to play, but they funked it as usual. That excites and upsets me, because we had a common cause across the Floor of the House to make something of a regulatory authority that would protect consumers' interests. As it is, we are now subject to a guillotine and great issues and principles will go undiscussed in this place. They may be taken up by the other place, which I understand the Opposition are only too eager to see abolished.
There is now an almost irrefutable case for the House of Lords to remain and to protect us against our follies and failure to examine in detail essential parts of a Bill. It surprises me that the Opposition should have made such a compelling case for the retention of the House of Lords to take over where we leave off. No doubt the right hon. Member for Salford, West, when he ascends to the other place, will give the detailed scrutiny to Bills that he has so avowedly eschewed on this Bill. I do not say that with ill will, because at times the right hon. Gentleman rises to the challenge. The dead hand belongs to almost the greatest Stalinist of this House, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, who cannot look beyond one structure or organisation to try to encompass the movement forward of a flexible society. Perhaps he must bear all the pains and penalties in order to protect the interests of the broad sweep of his colleagues against the more predatory instincts of the monopolists and traders.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) made some assumptions and assertions that were born out of the most casual understanding of the details of the Bill. He was wrong to say that Conservative Members tried to be persuasive in their arguments because they never wished to serve on a Bill again. That is a misunderstanding of what I and my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster have been trying to do. We are deeply anxious that the interests of consumers and, therefore, of our fellow citizens are protected. That caused argument. The Liberal representative, the hon. Member for Truro, has done the usual Liberal thing and is not present to hear that criticism of his speech. I wanted him to hear it.

Mr. John Grant: Having been on the Committee, I endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said. It was unfortunate that that remark was made, and I am certain that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend moved their amendments and made their speeches with sincerity.

Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful for that remark. I do not wish to be seen as biting the hand that feeds me, but it is an extraordinary proposition. The hon. Gentleman originally put forward a sensible although flawed proposition that perhaps by agreement we could discuss the Bill sensibly. That proposition was flawed, because there could be no agreement when the Opposition were fundamentally opposed to the selling of a monopoly. There is no question but that there could have been agreement on that matter. Therefore, the Government have resorted to the guillotine.
If the hon. Gentleman examines his stance and that of his hon. Friends, he will find that they are inconsistent. Were he to win by voting with the Opposition and the guillotine was thrown out, he would be reduced to the worst of all worlds. Even clauses that the hon. Gentleman wishes to be discussed would not be discussed, and we could toil on through clauses 4 and 5.

Mr. Stanley Orme: This has been an interesting and important debate on procedure and on the Bill. The House has heard the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) give his usual dissertation. He is partly responsible for this guillotine, because the Government wish to see him in chains and silenced.
I think that I have a fellow spirit in the Leader of the House in regard to the way in which democracy operates within our society. Democracy cannot always be parcelled up in a tidy fashion. It is not always possible to proceed at a certain rate and level. Hon. Members cannot always be pleasant to one another, thereby allowing the Government successfully to get through their legislation irrespective of how strongly people feel about it. In a democracy, people have bad feelings, errors and faults exist, and hon. Members must face the reality that, if they are to work in a parliamentary democracy, procedures are exceedingly untidy. Long and protracted debates occur.
My hon. Friends and I make no apology for the action that we have taken against the Bill. When some hon. Members talk about democracy, there is an assumption that, irrespective of the legislation, they must accept that that legislation will go through. I agree that improvements can be made. It is easy to say that, but far more difficult to implement it and to protect the rights of the minority as well as the majority.
When Conservative Members were faced with the Bill to nationalise the aircraft and shipbuilding industries they fought for their philosophy, as they were entitled to do. How would the Conservative party react if a Labour Government were to bring forward a Bill to nationalise the banks? They would use every means at their disposal to oppose such a Bill. In a democracy, people stop short of taking violent action to prevent a legitimately elected Government from operating, but there are real procedural problems.
The Leader of the House said that the Bill was of major importance. The Labour party is politically opposed to it. It is not possible to see any meeting point. The Opposition are not in the business of trying to improve what they regard as bad legislation. We are in the business of trying to prevent the Government from getting their legislation through the House. The Government, in the knowledge that they were not going to make any progress, decided to take Committee members throught three all-night sittings because it was a means of going for a guillotine.

Mr. John Grant: rose—

Mr. Henderson: rose—

Mr. Orme: The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills will have to face some of the things that he said about my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) when we discuss this matter in Committee tomorrow morning.
This is an extraordinary Bill by any standards. There is nothing with which to compare it. It is a major piece of denationalisation that will have repercussions in both the private and public sectors.
The Bill has 84 clauses and six schedules. Since the Committee stage started, we have had introduced the regulation on telecommunications in the United States of America, a description of the views of the Department of Industry on the British Telecom licence—hon. Members have not yet seen the real licence that the Minister promised—guidance notes on clause 3, the Littlechild report and the Government's response to it.
I agree with the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) that clause 3 will have to be completely rewritten because of the Government's introduction of fresh matter. The Minister said that drastic changes would have to take place because of the Littlechild report and what has come out during the debates on the Bill. The Committee spent 54½ hours discussing clause 3—during which some of its weaknesses have been established—which is central to the Bill.
The Government appear to have changed their tack. When they introduced the Bill, the intention was to free British Telecom from its restrictions as a public monopoly, so that it could borrow freely in the market place. Financial freedom was the Government's major argument, but the sale of shares in British Telecom has taken second place to the promotion of competition in the provision of services and the break-up of British Telecom as we understand it.
Yesterday, in Committee, a major debate took place on competition. Differences developed between the philosophy of the Government and that of the Opposition. Anyone who reads that debate, which was carried on at a very high level by both sides, will find a most fascinating exposition of the attitudes to competition of the Government and of the Opposition.
The Committee has also discussed the rural areas, the consumers in those areas, the pricing mechanism within those areas, and the cross-subsidisation that has created such a great deal of controversy.
We have discussed emergency calls and the 999 service. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) raised that point. Suddenly a proposal was introduced in Committee to abolish the emergency calls operator, but we have had no explanation from the Government of how that should operate or what sort of service would replace it. That raises fundamental issues. Therefore, the need to debate the Bill was evident.
The Government were not anxious to make progress. They wanted to ensure that the Littlechild report would be presented while the Committee was still discussing clause 3. Reference has already been made to the closure, but the Minister could not move the closure during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme because our procedure is that no one can intervene in such a manner while the mover of an amendment is speaking. Many hon. Members have learnt a lot from that procedure. In the House of Commons, we learn something, if not every day, certainly frequently. There were other occasions when the Government were not anxious to make progress, because they were awaiting the presentation of reports to the House and to the Committee. In consequence, we were under no pressure to make progress.
After all, we are debating the largest sale of a state industry ever undertaken in the United Kingdom. The Union of Communication Workers has called it the sale of the century. It will certainly be a massive sale. We are talking about the flotation of assets worth about £5 billion or £6 billion; the effects on people working in the industry; new technology and developments that will take place. Yet the Government have still given no assurance to the staff about their superannuation, job security and future generally.
Littlechild will reduce further BT's ability to operate on the scale that it does at present. It will reduce that activity, for example, by allowing the private sector to impinge on it. Mercury was supposed to compete against BT in the domestic market, but we were suddenly told that Mercury could operate against BT on the international market. How soon before other areas are under threat and pressure? At present, this industry is under public control and it is expanding. In our opinion, it is in the interests of the British people that it should remain in public control.
We make no apologies for the actions that we have taken. We are using our democratic rights. We are opposed to the Bill. Obviously, the Government have their eyes on a June election and want to get this legislation on the statute book. We have a legitimate reason for saying that we do not want it on the statute book, and we shall oppose it by any means at our disposal.
If people take the trouble to read the debates, be they the knowledgeable speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Openshaw, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme or my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), they will see that they contain matters of real interest and concern. The Government, without a mandate, are determined to press this measure through the House of Commons, and we are determined to prevent it, if possible.
We know that the Government are determined to make the Bill an Act of Parliament before the general election. We also know that we shall be unable to repurchase the shares when the Labour party returns to government. However, the Government will not float the shares until after the general election. Therefore, it will be a general election issue, and we are determined to make it such.
On behalf of the Opposition, I give the commitment that I gave previously—that an incoming Labour Government will repeal this measure in its entirety. We shall bring Mercury under public control within the BT monopoly. We shall make this a general election issue, and I am convinced that it can be a winning issue for the Labour party.

The Minister for Industry and Information Technology (Mr. Kenneth Baker): The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris), all said in their own way that the Government were rushing this legislation and thrusting it upon the House and an unsuspecting nation. I deny that completely.
The policy that the Bill implements was set out in the White Paper published as long ago as July last year. If hon. Members look at that White Paper they will see that we are implementing it line by line. After consultations during the autumn, the Bill was published on 17 November. Those hon. Members who have served on the Committee


for the last few months will know that it is an exceptionally complicated Bill. We also took the trouble to produce a 12-page explanation of how the Secretary of State would relate to the Director General of the new Office of Telecommunications and how the licence would be monitored. That document shows how the regime will operate.
The Committee commenced on 9 December. I was asked constantly for various documents, which I have given to the Committee. I was asked for the proposed licence, and after Christmas I submitted draft proposals for a licence. On 7 February the Littlechild report was published.
During the Second Reading debate on 29 November my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry said that he had asked Professor Littlechild to produce a report on the financial regime that would operate after BT was privatised, which, as the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) reminded us, would be after the next election in any event. Therefore, we are talking about a financial regime that will operate in six months, nine months or a year's time. Professor Littlechild reported on 17 January, and I reported to the House via a statement on 7 February.
Professor Littlechild's recommendations on price control rather than a profit ceiling are new, and I accept that, but the other half of his report, which rankles with Labour Members, particularly with the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, dealing with the extension of competition, is not a new policy, but an extension of the policy announced by my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Industry in July 1980 and extended by me in a statement in July 1981. I therefore disagree absolutely with the accusation that the Bill is being rushed through and has not been thought out.
Opposition Members have indulged in the practice of demanding papers. These I have provided in a probably unprecedently generous way, and as soon as they have had them they have moved the Adjournment of the Committee. That is not the action that one would expect. While I do not expect gratitude, I should have thought that Opposition Members would employ a little more guile in disguising their true intent—which is to delay the Bill in order to destroy it.
The delay has been on a mammoth scale. So far we have spent 110 hours in Committee. In the timetable motion that is before us there is provision for another 60 to 70 hours, so the Bill will have been subjected to 175 hours of debate by the time it is reported to the House. I think I am right in saying that this is the longest debate on any Bill in this Session of Parliament. We have had 64 hours of debate on clause 3, and that alone would justify a timetable motion.
Opposition Members have been frank from the beginning. I cannot say that they have not said openly that they want to delay the Bill. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme told us on Second Reading that it would mean a winter in the trenches, and it is he who has been giving the marching orders to the Committee, not the Front Bench spokesmen. He is the one who has been determining the policy and the timetable. He knows about the Bill. He has at least read it through. He has said quite clearly that he wants to delay it.

Mr. John Silkin: The Minister is being very fair, and he says that Opposition Members have been quite frank about their intentions. Why have the Government not been equally frank? If this is so important, why was it not in the Tory manifesto at the last general election?

Mr. Baker: As I have said to the right hon. Gentleman, this is an extension of the policy announced in July 1980, but we are meeting his point and putting this to the country in the forthcoming general election. I am very happy for it to be an election issue.
The policy of delay has been expounded not only by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme but by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe), who is the Whip on the Committee. The main virtue of a Whip is silence. Indeed, some would say that it is the only virtue. The only thing that makes a Whip acceptable is that he never speaks and only occasionally thinks. However, in the debate of December 9 the Whip on the Committee said:
we begin the marathon that will last throughout this year"—
he was right, it went throughout 1982—
into next year"—
he is right, it has come into 1983—
and possibly until the following year."—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 9 December 1982; c. 22.]
That is ambition. I hope that his colleagues on the Front Bench recognise it and duly reward him.
It has been clear that delay was the purpose of the Labour party in Committee and we have been subjected to very long speeches indeed. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), who is rather a quiet sort of chap normally, has spoken for 1 hour, 1 hour 30 minutes, 1 hour 45 minutes and 1 hour 55 minutes. All this has been surpassed, of course, by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. When he first spoke, for 4 hours 40 minutes, that was a gentle trot. The second time, it was a canter of 5 hours 45 minutes. Then there was the very long speech of 11 hours 15 minutes.
We in Committee Room 12 have been subjected to an orgy of verbosity and to a ritual of repetitive rambling. My hon. Friends have shown that they have wanted to debate these matters. The amendments in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) have been constructive and have been the subject of infinitely more interesting debates than have the amendments put forward by Labour Members.
This has become something of a constitutional matter. Several people felt that, by speaking for 11 hours 15 minutes, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme was not just spending a winter in the trenches, but going over the top. This is of concern to several of my hon. Friends who have spoken today, including my hon. Friends the Members for Leominster, for Fife, East (Mr.Henderson), for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale), and the hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr.Grant) who have expressed the view that this cannot be the best way to handle, debate and discuss a difficult and complicated piece of legislation.
It is for the House to decide how it should examine measures that are brought before it. Reforms normally come about when abuses become obvious and indefensible, and in my view the Standing Committee procedure has been abused. It is now up to the House and the Procedure Committee to see how things can be improved. Although it is probably too late to do anything about it in the last months of this Parliament, various suggestions


have been made by my hon. Friends, such as having an earlier timetable and so on. These are views that can be put forward again.
I also believe that the attitude of Opposition Members and the way in which they have drafted and dealt with amendments need considerable explanation. Why have Opposition amendments throughout been so negative? Why have they so far achieved so little? Why was the deputy Leader of the Opposition absent when his colleagues voted against clause 1, which was supposed to be the crucial clause? Why, after this long debate and great speech of 11 hours 15 minutes, did the Opposition Members not vote against that amendment? Their supporters outside the House will need answers to all these questions, because Labour Members have achieved absolutely nothing by their attitude.

Mr. John Grant: rose—

Mr. Baker: I am afraid that I cannot give way. I have only a few minutes left.
As my hon. Friends have made very clear, Opposition Members want to delay because they want to destroy the Bill. As has been said, the division between the two sides became very clear in the debate yesterday. The Bill ends British Telecom's special position. It takes away its power to license its competitors and thereby to stifle competition against itself. The Bill ends British Telecom's exclusive privilege of being the sole provider of telecommunications services and apparatus. It ends what is called the monopoly of the prime instrument. It ends the monopoly of maintenance of private branch exhanges. It has a fundamental effect on the whole of the telecommunications operation in this country.
Opposition Members want to retain British Telecom's exclusive privilege. They wish to retain the special protected status of British Telecom. They wish to retain the special protected status of the employees of British Telecom. They wish to protect and maintain the special protected status of the Post Office Engineering Union. They have said this again and again in Committee and in the debate tonight.
The right hon. Member for Salford, West said only a few moments ago that if his party won the election it would nationalise Mercury and repeal this legislation; that it would restore the exclusive privilege to this selected group of workers. I suggest that this is the naked and unlovely defence of vested interests. Why should the opportunity to develop in the most rapidly expanding market in the Western world, telecommunications, not be opened up for others? Why should a state monopoly be not only the main but the exclusive provider of all these services?
The Labour party simply wants more state control and a return to public ownership. This is not a policy, but a reactive impulse. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldbridge-Brownhills was absolutely right when he said that no constructive ideas had been put forward by Opposition Members in all these 110 hours of debate. They have not been put forward because the Labour party has no policy for technology, no policy for the new industries and no policy for grasping the opportunities in the communications revolution. Instead, it is the same old jargon—state control and state ownership. There they are marching backwards into the future.
We believe that the exclusive monopoly of BT should end and that other companies should be allowed to provide

new services and apparatus. It is only in that way that consumer choice can operate. It is only in that way that the consumer, following the passage of the Bill, will be able to decide for himself what services he wants and from whom he buys them, and what apparatus he wants and from whom he buys them. The choice of the consumer will drive this market forward.
We believe also that the employees and the telephone subscribers should be allowed, if they wish, to become shareholders in British Telecom. This is a part of the Bill that hon. Members have not yet touched upon. We believe that it is the market and not monopoly that should drive us forward. That is what the Bill enshrines. It has been clearly signalled to the country and the House from last July. It is an extension of our existing policy and the Bill should proceed to the statute book as soon as possible.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 227.

Division No. 69]
[10 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon


Aitken, Jonathan
Brooke, Hon Peter


Alexander, Richard
Brotherton, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)


Ancram, Michael
Browne, John (Winchester)


Arnold, Tom
Bruce-Gardyne, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Bryan, Sir Paul


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Buck, Antony


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Budgen, Nick


Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)
Burden, Sir Frederick


Banks, Robert
Butcher, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Bendall, Vivian
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul


Best, Keith
Chapman, Sydney


Bevan, David Gilroy
Churchill, W. S.


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Blackburn, John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Blaker, Peter
Clegg, Sir Walter


Body, Richard
Cockeram, Eric


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Colvin, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cope, John


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Corrie, John


Bowden, Andrew
Costain, Sir Albert


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Cranborne, Viscount


Braine, Sir Bernard
Critchley, Julian


Bright, Graham
Crouch, David


Brinton, Tim
Dickens, Geoffrey





Dorrell, Stephen
Kimball, Sir Marcus


Dover, Denshore
King, Rt Hon Tom


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Knight, Mrs Jill


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Knox, David


Durant, Tony
Lang, Ian


Dykes, Hugh
Latham, Michael


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lawrence, Ivan


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Eggar, Tim
Lee, John


Elliott, Sir William
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Emery, Sir Peter
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Eyre, Reginald
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Loveridge, John


Farr, John
Luce, Richard


Fell, Sir Anthony
Lyell, Nicholas


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
McCrindle, Robert


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Macfarlane, Neil


Fisher, Sir Nigel
MacGregor, John


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Forman, Nigel
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McQuarrie, Albert


Fox, Marcus
Madel, David


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Major, John


Fry, Peter
Marland, Paul


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marlow, Antony


Gardner, Sir Edward
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mawby, Ray


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Goodhew, Sir Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Goodlad, Alastair
Mayhew, Patrick


Gorst, John
Mellor, David


Gow, Ian
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gower, Sir Raymond
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Grant, Sir Anthony
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Gray, Rt Hon Hamish
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Greenway, Harry
Miscampbell, Norman


Grieve, Percy
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)
Moate, Roger


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Monro, Sir Hector


Grist, Ian
Montgomery, Fergus


Grylls, Michael
Moore, John


Gummer, John Selwyn
Morgan, Geraint


Hamilton, Hon A.
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mudd, David


Hannam, John
Murphy, Christopher


Haselhurst, Alan
Myles, David


Hastings, Stephen
Neale, Gerrard


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Needham, Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Nelson, Anthony


Hayhoe, Barney
Neubert, Michael


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Newton, Tony


Heddle, John
Normanton, Tom


Henderson, Barry
Nott, Rt Hon Sir John


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Osborn, John


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Hooson, Tom
Parris, Matthew


Hordern, Peter
Patten, John (Oxford)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Pattie, Geoffrey


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pawsey, James


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Percival, Sir Ian


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Pink, R. Bonner


Irvine, RtHon Bryant Godman
Pollock, Alexander


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Porter, Barry


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Jessel, Toby
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Prior, Rt Hon James


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Proctor, K. Harvey


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rathbone, Tim


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Renton, Tim






Rhodes James, Robert
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thompson, Donald


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Rossi, Hugh
Thornton, Malcolm


Rost, Peter
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Trippier, David


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Trotter, Neville


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Viggers, Peter


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Waddington, David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wakeham, John


Shepherd, Richard
Waldegrave, Hon William


Shersby, Michael
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Silvester, Fred
Walker, B. (Perth)


Sims, Roger
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Skeet, T. H. H.
Walters, Dennis


Smith, Sir Dudley
Ward, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Warren, Kenneth


Speller, Tony
Watson, John


Spence, John
Wells, Bowen


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Wheeler, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Sproat, Iain
Whitney, Raymond


Squire, Robin
Wickenden, Keith


Stainton, Keith
Wiggin, Jerry


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wilkinson, John


Stanley, John
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Steen, Anthony
Winterton, Nicholas


Stevens, Martin
Wolfson, Mark


Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stokes, John



Stradling Thomas, J.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tapsell, Peter
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Mr. Carol Mather.


NOES


Abse, Leo
Cryer, Bob


Allaun, Frank
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Alton, David
Dalyell, Tam


Anderson, Donald
Davidson, Arthur


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Ashton, Joe
Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)


Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)
Deakins, Eric


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dixon, Donald


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Dobson, Frank


Beith, A. J.
Dormand, Jack


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Dubs, Alfred


Bidwell, Sydney
Duffy, A. E. P.


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Eadie, Alex


Bottomley, Rt Hon A. (M'b'ro)
Eastham, Ken


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
English, Michael


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Campbell, Ian
Evans, John (Newton)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Ewing, Harry


Canavan, Dennis
Faulds, Andrew


Cant, R. B.
Field, Frank


Carmichael, Neil
Fitch, Alan


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fitt, Gerard


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Flannery, Martin


Clarke, Thomas (C'b'dge, A'rie)
Ford, Ben


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Foster, Derek


Cohen, Stanley
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Coleman, Donald
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Freud, Clement


Conlan, Bernard
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Cook, Robin F.
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Cowans, Harry
Golding, John


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Gourlay, Harry


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Graham, Ted


Crowther, Stan
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)





Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Prescott, John


Hardy, Peter
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Race, Reg


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Radice, Giles


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Haynes, Frank
Richardson, Jo


Heffer, Eric S.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Home Robertson, John
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Homewood, William
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Hooley, Frank
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Rooker, J. W.


Howells, Geraint
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Hoyle, Douglas
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Huckfield, Les
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ryman, John


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Sever, John


Janner, Hon Greville
Sheerman, Barry


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


John, Brynmor
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Short, Mrs Renée


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Silverman, Julius


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Skinner, Dennis


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Kerr, Russell
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Snape, Peter


Lambie, David
Soley, Clive


Lamond, James
Spearing, Nigel


Leadbitter, Ted
Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Spriggs, Leslie


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Stallard, A. W.


McCusker, H.
Steel, Rt Hon David


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stoddart, David


McElhone, Mrs Helen
Stott, Roger


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Strang, Gavin


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Straw, Jack


McKelvey, William
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


McNamara, Kevin
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


McTaggart, Robert
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


McWilliam, John
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)
Tilley, John


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Tinn, James


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Torney, Tom


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Maynard, Miss Joan
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Meacher, Michael
Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'castar)


Mikardo, Ian
Wardell, Gareth


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Watkins, David


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Weetch, Ken


Molyneaux, James
Welsh, Michael


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
White, Frank R.


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Whitehead, Phillip


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Whitlock, William


Newens, Stanley
Wigley, Dafydd


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


O'Halloran, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


O'Neill, Martin
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Palmer, Arthur
Winnick, David


Park, George
Woodall, Alec


Parker, John
Woolmer, Kenneth


Parry, Robert
Wright, Sheila


Pavitt, Laurie
Young, David (Bolton E)


Pendry, Tom



Penhaligon, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
Mr. George Morton and


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Mr. Ron Leighton.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Committee

1. The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 10th March 1983.

Report and Third Reading

2. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 43 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be moved to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory Motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on first allotted day

7.—(1) On the first allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.

(3) If the first allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

Private business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;



and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

12. — (1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—

"allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
"the Bill" means the Telecommunications Bill;
"Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
"Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Housing and Building Control Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Committee

1. The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 1st March 1983.

Report and Third Reading

2. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after midnight on that day; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of that day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 43 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be moved to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory Motion

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for three hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of three hours.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of three hours.

private business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be


considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion any proceedings

9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

12. — (1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—

"allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
"the Bill" means the Housing and Building Control Bill;
"Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
"Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

I rise a second time this afternoon to move an allocation of time motion. This Government's record shows that we take such a step only occasionally.
I said earlier this afternoon that I would say a few words on the general question of timetabling during this debate. In particular I have in mind early-day motion 298, in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Neale) and others, which has obtained over 100 signatories.
I propose to make only very tentative and general observations on the procedure in Standing Committees; but I have no doubt the matter will be raised again, as it has been in the past.
When my hon. Friend raised this matter with me last week, in business questions, I said that I regarded his general proposition as wholly appropriate to today's debate. It is, however, not a matter that can, or in any sense should, be decided today. The issues raised have far-reaching implications for our procedures, and in its previous consideration of the subject the House has rejected the idea of change. There is, of course, nothing sacrasanct about that decision. Nevertheless, it is clearly right that those who feel strongly on either side of the question should take this opportunity to express their views. Those who listened to our earlier debate this afternoon will not be surprised that strong men should have been moved to strong emotions by the events in Standing Committee H.
The possibility of the automatic timetabling of all Bills before they enter a Standing Committee was considered in detail by the Select Committee on Procedure in 1977–78 in the course of its review of the House's procedures in relation to public business.
The Committee concluded against general timetabling. Its objections, which were set out in paragraph 2.34 of the report were broadly that timetabling in advance would not necessarily ensure that time was spent on those matters of most interest to the House, since these would not always be anticipated; that it would lessen the incentive for Ministers to convince by argument—I do not believe this point was concluded in irony; that it would deprive the Opposition of the power to seek concessions through delay; and that it would probably lead to a smaller proportion of Committee time being available for Opposition speakers.
I acknowledge at once that some hon. Members would wish to argue that these considerations should not be regarded as decisive. Nevertheless, what cannot be in doubt is the fundamental nature of the issues raised. In my mind these lead decisively to the view that we should not contemplate any such changes in our procedures at this stage of a Parliament.
Throughout the debate on the preceding guillotine motion it was strongly argued by every Opposition Member who spoke that the measure could only be understood in the context of the Government's determination to hold a general election in June. I make no comment whatever which is designed to speculate upon the date of the general election, but if all those speeches from the Opposition Benches had any credence, they would immediately rule out any possibility of the matter being considered in any depth during the balance of time left available to this Parliament. However, I make these remarks in the context of a constructive debate earlier this afternoon. A new Parliament beckons and I have no doubt that our procedures will be considered and debated anew.

Mr. Gerry Neale: Would my right hon. Friend nevertheless agree that the end of a Parliament is the ideal time for several matters to be considered? Members' pay is an example. The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) has said that he holds high hopes of being in the Government after the next election. Now is the time when we could come to agreement about the unsatisfactory procedures with a view to bringing changes into effect after the next election, whichever Government are in power.

Mr. Biffen: The House will be fully extended in the few months that remain between now and the next election without the diversion of setting up a Procedure Committee specifically to deal with the point that exercises my hon. Friend. I can well imagine that the Chamber will re-echo with the arguments that we heard earlier and that consideration will be given to setting up a Procedure Committee in the next Parliament.
The Housing and Building Control Bill has two main purposes. Both are important. The first is to extend the right to buy to thousands of public sector tenants who at present fall outside the provisions of the Housing Act 1980. To one group of these tenants—some 40,000 to 50,000 who live in leasehold property—the Government have a long-standing commitment. It was our stated intention that they should be given the right to buy in 1980. That proved impossible in the legislative time available, but the commitment to those tenants remains. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made that clear just a year ago:
Our last legislation did not cover that case. It should be covered. It is our intention to cover it. We have a high priority to do so. I cannot promise my hon. Friend that there will be legislation during this Session of Parliament. However, if not, we shall try in the next Session."—[Official Report, 11 February 1982; Vol. 15, c. 1111.]
The Bill will honour that commitment. Tenants are waiting to buy their homes, in some cases after long periods of frustration at the hands of their councils. We do not wish to see them wait any longer.
The Bill also provides the right to buy for those tenants of charitable housing associations and trusts who live in housing financed by the Exchequer out of housing

association grants. That will further extend the opportunity to purchase their homes to some 80,000 tenants and put them in the same position as tenants of non-charitable associations. Arrangements are being made to safeguard any marginal investment of charitable funds at their modern value when such houses are sold.
It is perfectly possible that some charities will find that, as a result, they have extra capital available for re-investment in their housing, but we believe that where dwellings have been publicly funded and provided to meet general housing needs, the tenants should have the right to buy.
For those tenants who cannot afford to buy outright, the Bill provides the right to a shared ownership lease. They will have the opportunity to buy a lease representing at least 50 per cent. of the equity while continuing to pay rent on the remainder. Later, they can buy the remaining share of the equity, in stages if necessary, and thus become outright owner-occupiers when their resources permit. The concept of shared ownership is steadily gaining ground. The Bill will make it available to qualified tenants as of right. The second main purpose of the Bill is to enable the private sector to play a part in the system of building control and to reform and simplify the building regulations.
The present system has its origins in the 19th century. It is exceedingly complex: the relevant secondary legislation at present runs to more than 350 pages. There is general agreement in the construction industry that the recasting of the regulations is long overdue. The proposals in the Bill derive from wide and thorough consultation on the Command Paper issued by the Government in February 1981, which itself followed a series of consultations and public discussions going back to 1979. In particular, there is a common desire—shared by all the professional institutions concerned, by designers, builders, and local authority building control departments—for new building regulations following the model on which we consulted extensively nearly a year ago. We cannot make the progress we want in this important matter, where there is a concensus that progress is needed, until this Bill is enacted. Those are the most important aspects of the Bill. There are others of great value, but I hope that I have said enough to demonstrate the importance that the Government attach to this measure.
The House gave the Bill a Second Reading on 23 November, by a majority of 320 to 203. The Committee has now spent about 90½ hours considering it. It has met 25 times, and the Official Report runs to over 1,000 columns. The Committee has sat until midnight or later on four occasions, and once till 2 am.
The House would like to know of the progress so far. The Bill has 43 clauses and nine schedules, and falls into two roughly equal parts. Consideration of the first part, on the right to buy, was completed on 3 February, after some 73 hours of debate. Seventeen and a half hours were devoted to debate on clause 2 alone. After 17½ further hours of debate in the past two weeks, the Committee is still considering part II, which deals with building control. The details of the provisions for the recasting of building regulations have yet to be considered.
The Government naturally hoped for constructive discussion and reasonable progress in Committee. That has not been the case. Ample time has been allowed for full and detailed scrutiny, but no more than half the Bill


has yet been considered. The Government must therefore arrange for the remaining stages to be concluded within a reasonable time.
The motion provides that the Bill shall be reported to the House by 1 March. That will allow the Committee a further period of at least 26½ hours, if the Opposition wish, in which to complete its consideration of the remaining parts of the Bill. Proceedings on Report and Third Reading will then be concluded in one day thereafter, at one hour after midnight.
I therefore commend the motion to the House. The Bill contains important proposals, whose implementation is eagerly awaited by many. It is the Government's responsibility to carry through its proposals and so honour the commitments that have been given.

Mr. John Silkin: I was a little concerned for the Leader of the House when he rose a moment ago, in case he read out the notes that he had made for the first timetable motion today. It is not quite true that this Government only occasionally introduce guillotine motions. For the record, I think that I am right to say that this is the third guillotine motion in one month. That is quite a record — [Interruption.] It is amazing how, when a trap is set, the whole Treasury Bench invariably falls into it. I was about to ask what was so wrong with timetable motions that the Leader of the House should feel that he had to wash the blood from his hands by saying that this Government rarely introduced them. The point is that all Governments introduce timetable motions. They have to do so. It is well known.
The real question is whether the timetable motion is being introduced for the right Bill at the right time, and not whether 100 timetable motions should be introduced in one day. However, that might tax the Leader of the House a bit too much. It is the appropriateness of the motion that we must argue about— [Interruption.] I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot)—now Leader of the Opposition—only did three timetable motions in a day, but they were all right and they all had to be done. That is the difference.
The Leader of the House referred to the interesting suggestion in the early-day motion. I too will not go into the details now, but it is a fascinating subject and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman referred to it. Many years ago, when I was Minister of Public Building and Works, I met the late Iain Macleod. We discussed matters and he asked me what was new. I said that we had plans for a new parliamentary building. Incidentally, I am glad to see the Secretary of State for Defence—the former Secretary of State for the Environment—in the Chamber. Iain Macleod said, "My boy"—I was very young at the time—"there are two things that always come round with every new generation of Members of Parliament. One is a new parliamentary building and the other is the timetabling of all Bills." I have heard it and seen it about three times. It is amazing how much more popular the idea of timetabling Bills is when one is in government rather than in opposition. I have the strong feeling that those—not all, perhaps—who take a radical, progressive view of timetabling all Bills, will take a totally different view when they are in opposition in a few months time. That does not mean that it is not right to do so.

Mr. Neale: I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's argument. I acknowledge that I am new to

Parliament, as from the last election. Does he feel any concern that, irrespective of which party has been in office, there has been a relentless increase in the use of the guillotine? As I outlined in my speech in our earler debate, it has risen from six in the 1950s, to 13 in the 1960s, to 21 in the 1970s, and to probably well over 30 in the 1980s.

Mr. Silkin: We should really deal with the timetable motion, but I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's question. The rise is due partly to the enormous expansion of legislation. It is as simple as that. There was a time when a Conservative Government would have been ashamed to legislate at all. Now they produce legislation at the rate that the factories produced goods before the Government closed them.
There is a great deal to be said for the timetabling of all Bills, subject to certain safeguards. The first, inevitable, safeguard is that the Government must present their Bill in reasonable time. The Opposition must be given the fullest opportunity to debate and scrutinise and make changes where they can do so. Those are the necessary guarantees. Let us assume that that admirable position existed today, that we were debating Second Reading and considering the Bill's timetable. It simply could not be timetabled to meet those tenets. The Bill is not one Bill, but two unrelated Bills. It is different from some of the Bills about which the Leader of the House and I have crossed swords. We do so gently, of course—they are swords with velvet covers.
The Leader of the House said that there were 43 clauses in the Bill. He is a fair man, and would be the first to agree that the last six clauses are not important. They fit in, and must be there, but there is not much to discuss on them. The first 37 clauses are the important clauses. They can be split into two halves—one of 19 clauses and one of 18 clauses; part I and part II. Of course, part III follows on from part II, but is not important.
Part I, a Bill in itself, deals with the right to buy. The right hon. Gentleman gave us a potted version—

Mr. Ted Graham: A potty version.

Mr. Silkin: No, the right hon. Gentleman put the matter fairly.
We disagree with the Bill. We disagree with every word and every principle contained in it. It is highly political and highly controversial. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman spoke in a low-key voice does not make it any the less highly political or highly controversial.
To that first Bill has been added a second Bill, also highly controversial and highly political. It seeks to change the building regulations. Its authors would say that it was intended to bring the regulations up to date. I hope that I do not read too much into my hon. Friends' thoughts—they take the view that some aspects of the regulations do need changing, and that it is adequate and reasonable to do so. But they object to the highly party political nature of part II, which deals with privatisation—a terrible word: I am not sure where it originated, but it means taking away from the public its assets, ownership, and duties, and allowing private entrepreneurs to adopt them. That is highly controversial. I cannot see any similarity or link between the two Bills—yet they are in the same Bill.
If we consider the first 19 clauses to be one Bill, it has not taken an unreasonable time to discuss—precisely two months from the time that it entered Committee to the time


that it reached clause 20. The Leader of the House spoke of 71½ hours being spent on clause 2 alone, but he forgot to mention that six clauses were passed in one sitting. On average, that is not a great deal of time.
If we view part II on the same basis, and say that it is another Bill—equally controversial and difficult for the Opposition to accept because of our wholly different philosophy—that Bill would also take two months to discuss. That would take us to the beginning of April. Is that such a terrible thing? Of course it is not. The truth is that the Government are engaged in clearing the decks of all legislation. I do not wish to stop my hon. Friends speaking in the debate, but I wish to take a moment to think aloud. If, as is always possible, the Prime Minister changes her mind and decides to hold an election not this year, but next year, what will we discuss next session? We might ask the Select Committees to give us interim report after interim report, but is would be a rather boring session. I assure Conservative Members that there will be no guillotine or timetable motion then. The difficulty is that there will be too much time. The Government are clearing the decks for a general election. I do not blame them for doing so—they are entitled to do so—but that is not a reason for timetabling this Bill. It, of all Bills, will have not just a marginal effect, but will affect every local authority in Britain. It deserves the closest possible scrutiny.
I am afraid that the Bill will not receive that scrutiny. We must divide on a timetable motion. We need not do so, because the time is there to do the job properly. What will be the result? The provisions for the right to buy will create great difficulties. The Opposition are in good company in that view—not political company, but clerical and charitable company. As for part II, I fear that the Government, in their ideology, have done something which, to be fair, they had not fully intended to do. They may be setting up a web of corruption. Corruption does not arise where there is independent supervision, but where people are linked and the temptations are enormous. That could lead to bad housing.
In the east end of London during the blitz, words written on the walls of destroyed houses said, "Jerry built them, Jerry bombed them." If the Bill is allowed to become law, we may see written, "Jerry built them, Jerry sold them."
The Opposition oppose the timetable motion, for the reasons that I have given. Above all, we oppose the legislation contained in the two Bills that form the corpus of the one Bill. We will repeal them the moment that we are returned to power.

Viscount Cranborne: I understand from the comments of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that during the previous timetable debate many strong feelings were expressed about whether Bills should be guillotined from the beginning. I apologise to my right hon. Friend and to other right hon. and hon. Members for missing the debate and the many words of wisdom that were no doubt spoken during the course of it. However, I make no apology for returning to an issue that my right hon. Friend disposed of when he opened the debate with his customary elegance and zest.
My right hon. Friend referred to the proceedings and report of the Procedure Committee for 1977–78. From that, he adduced four reasons why Bills should not be guillotined after Second Reading. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) I am conscious that I have only recently come into this august institution. Therefore, I take cognisance all the more humbly of the anecdotes that the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) told about the days when he was a tyro such as I.
Nevertheless, with all the perhaps unmerited self-confidence of youth, in spite of the strictures of the late lain Macleod, I am tempted to press my right hon. Friend for an end to the curious ritual that all of us have witnessed during this Parliament. It is an 18th-century ritual, reminiscent of nothing so much as the warfare of the battle of Fontenoy at which the battle was joined and the enemy who fired first lost the battle. Everybody knew that that would happen, just as the Government know what will happen when, in Committee, they allow the Opposition to fire first, as they have so frequently and at such length, during the proceedings that all of us have had to endure for so long and so boringly.
My right hon. Friend knows well, as all of us do, what that ritual is. I shall not go over the ground so eloquently covered today. However, he adduced four arguments against regular timetables from the Select Committee report in 1977, and I should like to refer briefly to three of them.
I think that I heard my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House correctly, and from my reading of the report I gather that a great deal is made of the claim that the Opposition's only weapon is delay. I have been told by no less a person—I hope that he will not mind me quoting him when he is not in the Chamber—than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, "When you are in opposition, my boy, you will realise that delay is the only weapon open to you, and you will not espouse the cause of efficiency that you espouse with such enthusiasm now."
I have enormous respect for all those right hon. and hon. Members who have spent so many years adorning this Chamber. Who am I to dispute their experience, however greatly daring? However, the excuse that is given for the hours that we endure in Committee, during sittings motions and over the initial clauses of a controversial Bill does not really hold water.
I am told by people who are perhaps better versed in these matters than I am that the whole business of reaching the time when a timetable motion is to be introduced is now part of the elaboration of the very ritual that so many of us find deplorable. I am told—my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will no doubt be able to put me right if I am wrong—that over the past few years a consensus is reached whereby both the Opposition and the Government Front Benches judge that the time is right for a guillotine motion to be entertained on the Floor of the House. That time comes after about 80 or 90 hours of debate, after a few late-night sittings have proved the virility of the Government and the Opposition, and after, no doubt, the Government Whip on the Committee, if he has any pull with the Leader of the House—as I am sure that the Government Whip on this Committee has—has ensured that a guillotine motion is appropriate.
I am willing to accept that that is not so, if my right hon. Friend tells me, but, if it is, we have the beginnings of the sort of 18th-century warfare ritual about which I was complaining in the earlier evolutions before the guillotine


stage. If that is so, the argument that the only weapon of the Opposition is time is nothing more than an illusion woven by proponents of the status quo who want to preserve it for reasons that are beyond me.
I am conscious that this is a short debate, but I wish to refer to the other reasons given by my right hon. Friend. He said, and the Select Committee report refers to the fact, that the Committee stage gives Opposition speakers the opportunity to air their views. This is unquestionably true on any Standing Committee on which I have served. If it is concerned with a controversial Bill, the Government Whip on duty will virtually string one up from the rafters of the Whips' Office if one so much as opens one's mouth. After all, he wants to get the Bill through. The only Members who are allowed to talk during the opening stages of the Bill before a guillotine has been introduced are Opposition Back Benchers.
No matter how expert many of my hon. Friends are who are members of the Standing Committee—although there are many present tonight who are members of this Standing Committee, I am not one—they talk at length and give the Committee the benefit of their views at their peril. It is undoubtedly true that the Opposition have a chance to air their views on the Bill, but it makes the discussion more than a little one-sided. Does such discussion give the Bill the airing that it deserves?
On the third reason given by my right hon. Friend, there was touching agreement and consensus between the two Front Benches. I am told by almost as old a hand as the right hon. Member for Deptford that a Back Bencher must beware when the two Front Benches agree about anything. Therefore, I must be all the more careful when considering this third reason given by my right hon. Friend, because both he and the right hon. Member for Deptford agreed wholeheartedly on it.
My right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman said that at the beginning of consideration of a Bill in Committee, it is virtually impossible to know how a proper balance of discussion can develop. That may be so, but the right hon. Member for Deptford is, at least in part, condemned out of his own mouth. When discussing the nature and composition of the Bill, he said that anybody could see that the final six clauses of the Bill were not all that important, but the other 37 clauses were.

Mr. John Silkin: I said that the first 37 clauses contained the meat of the Bill and the controversy. The remaining clauses naturally follow. Of course they are important. They would not be in the Bill if they were not.

Viscount Cranborne: It is touching that the right hon. Gentleman approves of the Government's sense of priorities and recognises that what the Government propose is important, even in the final six clauses. He implies that he can tell by reading the Bill that the final six clauses are not controversial and that the meat of the Bill is in the first 37 clauses. We begin to see the start of some consensus.
The right hon. Gentleman subsequently discussed the nature of the Bill. He said that, in effect, it falls into two parts and that it is really two Bills. This begins to make us recognise that it is possible, when reading a Bill, to get some idea of where the argument will fall and where it will not. I do not have the advantage of being a lawyer, like the right hon. Gentleman, but I am told—he will be able to advise me about this—that two opposing banisters in

court will spend quite a lot of time agreeing where the common ground lies. Consequently, they are able to concentrate the hours that they spend in court on areas where there is disagreement. To some extent this must be true of considering a Bill in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman's judgment of the first 37 clauses and the nature of the final six condemned himself to some extent and supported, to a degree, the argument that I am advancing.
I support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North that we reconsider the refusal of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to examine procedure during the remaining months of this Parliament. I do not know what legislative plans my right hon. Friends have for the remainder of this Parliament. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Deptford is right when he says that there will be little for Parliament to legislate about. If so, I am delighted. The Conservative party would like to be the party of less legislation, and I hope that that will be so in future.
If the right hon. Gentleman is right and there is not much for us to do in the way of legislation during the remainder of this Parliament, I submit, in all humility, that there might be worse things for us to do than to discuss the procedures of the House and to clear the decks with a reform that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends feel increasingly to be important so that, after winning the next election, the Conservative Government will be able to address themselves to new legislative measures with more efficiency than this Government have been allowed to do under the present procedures.
I support the motion but with less enthusiasm than I would have shown had the measure been introduced after Second Reading rather than halfway through the Bill's consideration in Committee.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I oppose the motion. I do not believe for one second that the time proposed for the debates in the motion will be adequate fully to discuss the Bill.
The Bill does three things. First, it extends the right to buy to the tenants of charitable housing associations and rides roughshod through the concept of charitable law and the status of charitable housing associations, and of all other charities such as private and public schools. Secondly, the Bill gives council tenants and housing association tenants the right to purchase part of their house or flat if they cannot afford to purchase it all. That is one of the most ludicrous housing proposals that the Government have made. Thirdly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) has said, roe Bill proposes the privatisation of building regulations and building controls. That is a significant and important issue, because in the final analysis it amounts to life or death. If buildings are dangerous, or if they fall down, loss of life or limb can result.
The Bill is part and parcel of the Government "s devastating and doctrinaire attack on the public rented sector. It is a continuation of the Government's housing policies, which are part of their economic and industrial strategy as well as their housing strategy. The Government's aim through their administrative and legislative actions is to prevent either central Government or local government from interfering in the workings of Britain's economy for the benefit of the community, for


the majority. It is their aim to hand over the running of the country to the private sector and free enterprise. They want to do that in housing and they are proceeding to do so through this Bill in the same way as they wish to proceed in areas of economic and social activity.
The Government are attempting by means of the Bill, as they did in the Housing Act 1980 and in other actions taken by the Minister for Housing and Construction, to hand over the future of Britain's housing to the private rented sector. They started the process with the 1980 Act and they are continuing it with the Bill.
The Government's aim in the 1980 legislation was to revitalise the private rented sector. They decontrolled 200,000 tenancies and invented a new form of tenancy called assured tenancy, which means that if anyone builds a new house or flat he can let it in the private rented sector without being subject to Rent Act controls. The Government have enabled private landlords' rents to be reviewed every two years instead of every three. In other words, they have increased rents—because "review" is a euphemism for increasing rents. They also introduced a concept called shorthold, an entirely new concept which means that tenants of private landlords have security of tenure for only the period of a shorthold tenancy. At the end of the agreement, whether it be one, two, three, four or five years, the landlord can evict the tenant with only 14 days' notice. The tenant then has to find somewhere else to live.
That legislation was an attempt to revitalise the private rented sector and to push people back on to being dependent upon that sector. It was argued by the Conservative party and Ministers that there was a shortage of houses because of wicked Rent Acts passed by successive Labour Governments controlling rents in the private sector and giving security of tenure to the tenants of private landlords. They claimed that the Rent Acts prevented the private sector from investing capital in the private sector because it knew that it would not secure a return on the capital invested.
The argument ran that it was necessary only to lift rent restrictions and allow people to invest capital in private housing and enjoy a greater return on the capital invested. It was said that against that background, and with the opportunity to obtain vacant possession of properties more easily by being able to evict tenants, the problem would be solved. The Government told us that there would then be a boom in the private sector, investment in it and the ending of the housing crisis. Alas, it did not work—and for one reason. The other sectors are a more attractive proposition to anyone who is in housing need. We subsidise the other sectors and do not subsidise the private landlord.
We subsidise the public rented sector. Anyone who can gain access to it will be better housed and pay a lower rent than someone who is housed in the private rented sector. People therefore turn to the private sector when they cannot get into the public sector. That is why the Government have decided to destroy the public rented sector through administrative actions. They have ensured that it does not increase. There is hardly any money for building in the public rented sector, whether they be council houses or housing association houses. Having started their attack on the public sector, the Government

have turned with the same vengeance on the housing association movement, charitable or otherwise. They are attempting to destroy that as well.
The Government forced people to be dependent on the private landlord by stopping extra provision for public sector housing. The second stage was to set about destroying the existing public rented sector. They have done that by forcing local authorities not so much to sell their houses to sitting tenants as virtually to give them away at half-price discounts. The Government's legislation of 1980 made it virtually impossible for any local authority, even if it was elected on a policy of not selling council houses, not to sell those houses. They also introduced regulations and discounts that made it almost impossible for any tenant in his right mind not to see that he was being given a golden handshake paid for by the local authority's rate and rent payers. They reduced the public rented stock so that relets would not be available and people in housing need would be forced back on to the private sector which the Government are trying to revitalise.
Having failed, through the 1980 legislation and the right-to-buy provisions contained in it, to destroy the public rented sector to the extent that they wished, the Government are now making it far easier for tenants to purchase their properties. At the same time, they are making life more difficult for local authorities. When a tenant cannot afford to buy all his house or flat, the Government are introducing measures that will enable him to buy part of that property. The tenant will be able to start with the toilet and move on to the bathroom. Such tenants hope eventually to be able to afford all their property. However, there is a catch. If a tenant buys half his property and rents half of it, repairs will not be carried out. If he buys the front door, the back door will not be repaired. That is a stupid feature of this legislation that must be debated much more fully than the timetable motion allows.
As well as forcing the right-to-buy provisions on local authorities to destroy the public rented sector and as well as extending those provisions in the present legislation by introducing the idea of part-purchase, the Government are turning their attention to the charitable housing associations. In 1980, even this Government had the sense to exempt them from the right-to-buy provisions. It is not simply members of the Labour party, Socialists and people on the Left who oppose this legislation; it is the charitable housing associations. Many of the people who staff and run them would be at home in any Conservative constituency association. They did not believe that the axe would be wielded against them by a reasonable, middle-of-the-road Conservative Government. This is not a reasonable middle-of-the-road Government. In their blind attack on the public rented sector, the Government have turned on charities and charitable housing associations. That must be fully discussed as it affects the concept of charitable law.
One way to destroy the public rented sector and to push people back on to the private landlord is to increase the cost of the public rented sector to tenants. To make their right-to-buy provisions and discounts and the purchase of council houses and housing association properties attractive, the Government must make continuing to rent unattractive in the public sector. They are doing that in several ways. One is to force up the costs to the tenant. That can be done by increasing rents, by cutting subsidies to local authorities so that local authorities must increase


rents. Moreover, by prescribing high rent increases and taking away subsidy, the Government are ensuring that adequate maintenance of the existing housing stock cannot be carried out. Therefore, tenants are tempted even further to exercise their right to buy. That is all part of the strategy to destroy the public rented sector.
The figures are devastating. In 1979, when the previous Labour Government left office, the average council house rent was £6·40. It is now £13·54. Moreover, another 85p is to go on top of that. One must also add the cost of rates. The figures that I have given are an average and include areas where rents are traditionally low. In areas such as London, Liverpool and Birmingham, where there are housing problems, rents are much higher.
The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) said in Committee that an argument in favour of extending the right to buy to housing association tenants and strengthening that right for local authority council house tenants was that it was advantageous for tenants to be owner-occupiers. When he tried to justify the discounts and bonuses, he said that owner-occupiers paid a larger percentage of their income in costs that are directly associated with housing. The matter was not adequately debated because the Government Whip kept moving the closure. That is why we now need an opportunity to debate the issue more fully. The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth also attempted to use the argument that council house tenants were subsidised more than owner-occupiers to justify a saving to the local authorities' exchequers, by selling council houses.
I have some fascinating figures. If one examines the amount of income tax relief on interest that owner-occupiers receive on their mortgages, one finds that in 1982–83, the Exchequer will forgo £2,150 million. That works out at an average of £371 per owner-occupier. About 5,800,000 owner-occupiers have mortgages and receive that subsidy. Even if one divides the total number of owner-occupiers in 1981–11,935,000—into the £2,150 million that owner-occupiers will receive in income tax relief, one sees that each owner-occupier will receive £210 a year. That calculation includes owner-occupiers who have received subsidies but no longer have a mortgage. That figure should be contrasted with the subsidy that council house tenants receive. There are 6,574,000 council house tenants. That is not an insignificant number of people. The total Government subsidy for those 6·5 million families through the housing revenue account in 1982–83 is only £592 million. We should compare that with the £2,150 million that will be given in income tax relief to owner-occupiers.
Local authorities have to pay rate fund contributions into housing revenue accounts. They are claimed to be a subsidy as well although many are income maintenance because of contributions to rebates and so on. The total rate fund contribution, on top of the £592 million, is £325 million. If one adds the two together, the subsidy, if it is a subsidy—many things are paid for in the housing revenue account that are not a direct subsidy to the rents of council tenants—averages out at £187 per council tenant in 1982–83, compared with £371 to the average owner-occupier.
I am concerned that the Bill should not be guillotined because of the consequences that the legislation, as part of the Government's policies, will have on the people in my constituency who live in council and housing association accommodation. Many people on the waiting

lists of the local authority want council or housing association accommodation. In Sefton, the number of council tenants is 22,430. Government subsidy to the Sefton housing revenue account for the current financial year is £3,274,000, a very low figure. The Government do not do much to justify it because they will not encourage the building of council houses. The lowest possible rate fund contribution from any local authority is £248,000, so there is a total of only £3,522,000 in the local authority's housing revenue account. The average subsidy per council tenant in Sefton is £157 a year—if it was a subsidy, which it is not. It is not there to hold the rents down. It is used to run services—not to build council houses, but to do other things that benefit the whole community and not just the council tenants.
Those figures show what the Government have been doing. They have been trying to destroy the public rented sector to force people into either being dependent on the private rented sector or buying their council accommodation because of high rents, cuts in subsidy and lack of repairs.
I shall consider the likely consequences of the right-to-buy provisions, if they are not more fully debated, in the metropolitan borough of Sefton in my constituency of Bootle. We should oppose those provisions. One can get a picture of what will happen to the housing association rented accommodation in Sefton from what has happened to the council accommodation that has or has not been sold. There are 22,430 council dwellings in the metropolitan borough of Sefton. Most are in Bootle. Before local government reorganisation, Bootle had a Labour council that built houses, which Crosby, Formby and Southport did not do. Of the 22,430 dwellings, 3,370 have been sold already—that is 15 per cent. It is interesting that, of the 15 per cent. that have been sold, only 1·8 per cent. were flats. All the rest were dwellings. Only 60 out of the 3,370 units of acommodation sold were flats. It is also interesting that 28 per cent. of the flats that were sold were in Bootle. No one wants to buy a flat in Bootle because flats are not worth buying there. Some 1,560 of the 3,370 dwellings that have been sold‡46 per cent. of all sales—are in Bootle. When one realises that 75 per cent. of all the dwellings are in Bootle, that seems a small percentage.
It is the better houses in the lush areas and the gin-and-tonic belts of Crosby and Southport that are being sold. Families on the waiting list in Bootle, people in housing need and those with children seeking transfers out of the flats of Bootle cannot move into accommodation in Crosby, Southport and Formby because it is being sold. On the other hand, Sefton council can make sure that those living in the council accommodation in Southport and Crosby, whom they call problem families, are transferred to the accommodation in Bootle that is not being sold, to exacerbate the problems of Bootle.
Exactly the same thing will happen with the housing association accommodation too, so it is important that there should be a continued debate on the Bill. Those in housing need in Bootle and the rest of Sefton are entirely dependent upon the housing associations at the moment, because the local authority does so little. Only the housing associations are building, acquiring and improving—within the limits of the allocations that they receive through the Housing Corporation, which have been cut.
If that accommodation is sold off in the same way, what hope will there be for the young couple living with their in-laws? What hope will there be for those in the private rented sector in my constituency, which the Government have been trying to revitalise? Those living in properties that lack basic amenities and that the private landlord will not improve cannot take effective action because the council will not help them, and they do not even know who their landlords are. What about those with children, living in flats, who want transfers to the houses that are being sold? Their only hope at present is an offer of rented accommodation from a housing association, and that possibility will be attacked by this legislation. The Bill needs full and adequate debate and should not be guillotined.
The reason why the Government have introduced this legislation, and why they want to guillotine it, is that they want to finish what they started when they took power. They want to implement free market, private sector policies in housing as elsewhere. They even want to privatise checking in the private sector—the process of making sure that what has been done is safe and adequate. That is what is proposed in the last part of the Bill, which would privatise the building regulations.
That is the height of folly. If there is no full debate and the Bill is not changed, the Government will live to regret its consequences. When people have died in a future catastrophe which happened because the local authorities were no longer involved in making sure, through the building regulations, that everything was done properly, people will ask which Minister and which Government were responsible. I would not like to carry that responsibility.
That piece of privatisation is very misguided. Even the most extreme Conservatives must agree that in some areas the public sector must exist to safeguard and assist the private sector. If they do not believe that, we are on a short road to disaster. To avoid that disaster, and to avoid increasing the misery of those in housing need and those living in council and housing association accommodation, I oppose this guillotine.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), although I find it difficult to follow either the logic or the relevance of his contribution. I agree with him, however, that the Bill is of fundamental importance. I hope, therefore, that he will be a regular attender for the remainder of our proceedings. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to display his prejudices, as doubtless we all do, but it was wrong for him at the end of his speech to ascribe to us motives and policies that are utterly wrong. What he said is simply not true.
I have immense regard for the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin). I shall never describe him as an old Member, but I shall always describe him as a very experienced Member. He speech was both ingenious and ingenuous. I congratulate him on his ingenuity in finding new reasons and ideas to bring to this timetable debate. It was matched only by that of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House who sought to give yet another version of the reasons why the timetable motion should be accepted.
I wish to take up two points made by the right hon. Member for Deptford, one very minor and one more serious. The right hon. Gentleman gave the impression that only parts I and II of the Bill were important. To me, part III is also extremely important in providing the possibility for changing the scope and form of the building regulations.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the more serious matter of corruption. He certainly implied that there would be greater scope for corruption if the system of approved inspectors came into being. With respect, I believe—I choose my words carefully here—that there is just as great an opportunity for corruption in the public services of our country as there might be in what he would describe as the private sector. It is important to put that on record.
We can all play around with statistics. We have been told that we have already debated the Bill for more than 90 hours in 25 sittings of the Standing Committee, taken up more than 1,000 columns of Hansard but got only halfway through the Bill. To me, those statistics are themselves compelling reasons to support the timetable motion.
I wish to refer, too, to the reality of the Committee proceedings. I concede at once that if Conservative Members were in opposition, they might be guilty of the same behaviour, but that is hypothetical and academic. The fact remains that the points made by the Opposition could have been made in a tithe of the time that they actually took. I cite one more statistic—we have already spent more than 20 hours on three clauses in part II.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne), in his excellent contribution, referred to the ritual of our proceedings. One might use other words and call it a pantomime or a farce. I disagree with my hon. Friend in just one respect. He said that Conservative Members were encouraged to be silent. I am sure that that is true, but my hon. Friend will be the first to congratulate Conservative Back Benchers on not remaining silent but making relevant contributions. It may be coincidence—I prefer to think that it was, although the more I think about it the more I wonder—that three days after my first, modest 10-minute contribution on part I of the Bill, the Government Whip trapped my fingers in his car door. I am endeavouring to effect a speedy recovery.
It should be placed clearly on record that the hon. Members for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) and Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) have made excellent and articulate contributions in Committee, as did my hon. Friends the Minister for Housing and Construction and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, although the Opposition speeches might on occasion have been rather more concise. In case any hon. Member tries to pick me up on this, I should state that I have taken only 20 columns of the 1,000 columns of Hansard, and one third of that was occupied quite properly in answering interventions from Opposition Members.
My main point is that, as a result of this motion, four fifths of our time will have been spent on half the Bill. That is the reality of the matter, and it is a sad reflection on our procedure. I add a further dimension to what my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South said. I am concerned about what members of the public who observed our proceedings in Committee may have thought about the standard of some of the contributions. I believe that the present system is in danger of bringing this wonderful institution into contempt. Frankly, I fear for the reputation


of Parliament. I believe that the way in which we sometimes proceed in Committee could bring democracy into disrepute. We should consider that dimension when we reflect on the Select Committee report of five years ago and the four reasons eloquently expounded by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for not having a timetable for all Bills.
We are fast reaching the time when we should find reasons for overcoming the four obstacles set out in the Select Committee report instead of accepting them at face value. I implore Ministers to consider that seriously. I suspect that only when a party is in opposition can it take the initiative in bringing a timetable system into our proceedings, and I fear, in that sense, it will be a very long time before we have that opportunity. Nevertheless, I very much hope that there will be all-party discussions on this. It is a matter not just of defending democracy, although I believe that democracy can be safeguarded adequately even with a timetable system for Bills in Committee, but of reassuring the public that every Bill is considered at leisure, properly and adequately by Members.

Mr. John Cartwright: I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) said at the end of his speech and with much of what was said earlier by the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne). Our timetabling system is becoming a farce. There is usually a great deal of synthetic indignation in these debates. Charges and counter-charges are lobbed back and forth, usually between Front Benches whose members have all in their time guillotined Bills and fought to the last ditch against the guillotining of Bills. The argument tends to be, "Our guillotines are not so bad as yours," which scarcely makes for an edifying debate. Another frequent feature of timetable debates is that they are often a rehash of Second Reading debates, when hon. Members dust off and recycle their Second Reading speeches for the benefit of their local newspapers. There has already been one example of that today.
I believe that the House is becoming bored with that kind of performance. If proof is required, one has only to look around the Chamber. With the exception of perhaps one hon. Member on each side, the only Members in the Chamber are the members of the Standing Committee debating with one another all over again. I strongly agree with those who say that it is about time we found a better way to handle this procedure.
Having said all that, however, I believe that this Bill is an extraordinary candidate for a timetable motion. I accept that it is important and has some controversial elements, but it is hardly the centrepiece of the Government's legislative programme. It is a rather disparate collection of detailed odds and ends. In housing terms it is a mixture of the good, the bad and the irrelevant. A great deal of it is highly technical. The point was made at the Committee's first sitting that it was an ideal Bill for the Select Committee procedure. It would have been interesting to hear the charitable housing associations explain what would happen to their activities as a result of clause 2.
I should have listened with great interest to local authority representatives and officers spelling out what shared ownership would mean for them practically. I might have learnt something if we had had professional bodies and expert practitioners in the subject commenting

upon the proposals for changes in the building control mechanisms. It is a pity that the usual channels did not arrange matters in such a way that the taking of evidence under the Select Committee procedure could have begun our work in Committee.
As I understand it, the Government's case for the timetable motion seems to rest on the argument that there has been deliberate time wasting in Committee. As the sole representative of the minority parties on the Committee, I have no particular axe to grind between one side and the other. I do not believe that the charge of time wasting can be made out. However, I concede straight away that when we were debating part I the Opposition were stretched fairly thinly and I accept that the arguments were sometimes extended to cover the maximum time possible and that on occasions the ratio of solid, relevant argument to the number of words used was fairly low.
It is a pleasure always to listen to my former hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham). I have been doing so in one arena after another for about 20 years. I felt occasionally that one could have a little too much of a good thing in Committee. I must pay tribute to his superhuman efforts in Committee, not just in his contributions, which have always been stimulating, but in his ability to keep his hon. Friends going when their ingenuity or inventiveness and occasionally their stamina showed signs of flagging. If that is the allegation of time wasting, I have seen a great deal worse in my eight years in Committees dealing with Bills that were not subject to a timetable motion.
It is fair to say, as has been said already by the Opposition, that in part I we are talking about serious political issues. I do not necessarily share Labour Members' strong feelings about the extension of the right to buy in the council sector provided by part II. I am glad to see the loopholes, which have been exploited by a number of councils, blocked. I do not share the opposition in principle of Labour Members to the extension of shared ownership. However, I recognise their strong feelings.
Clause 2, which provides for the extension of the right to buy to tenants of charitable housing associations, is something that the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) has said raises strong feelings right across the political spectrum, not just among Labour Members or Members of the alliance, but among those of other political persuasions. Opposition to that proposal has been made absolutely clear by the volume of correspondence that has showered upon every member of the Committee. Given that strength of feeling, it was perfectly understandable that part I was fiercely contested and absorbed a great deal of time.
We have moved to part II, which is the rather more technical part of the Bill, and there has been some improvement in progress. There has been a greater involvement by Government Back Benchers, which I welcome, because they bring a great deal of technical expertise to this part of the Bill. They are improving the examination of the Bill in Committee.
It would have been perfectly possible, without a timetable motion, but with a reasonable amount of good will on both sides, to have had adequate discussions and to have completed the Committee stage by early March. I do not believe that the Government's case for the timetable motion has been made out. There have been occasions when the Government have apparently been perfectly relaxed and have let the clock run on to justify


the timetable motion on the basis of the number of hours taken up in Committee. The trundling out of the guillotine is out of proportion both to the importance of the Bill and to the events in Committee. I therefore cannot support the timetable motion.
Equally, I cannot vote against the timetable motion, because I think that reasonable time has been allocated for the work that the Committee has left. It is interesting to note that the time that has been fixed in the timetable motion is a deadline that was being informally bandied about in Committee fairly recently. It would have been possible to reach such an agreement without the use of a timetable motion. It is interesting to note that the two old parties always come to a friendly agreement when their interests are at stake.
The allocation of one day only on Report is a trifle mean, but I notice that it is to continue for one hour after midnight, which is equivalent to one and a half days. That is something to which we cannot object. However, it means that we are up late at night or early in the morning. I suspect that once again it will be the members of the Committee who will be debating at one o'clock in the morning, or whenever it comes.
I believe that there is another argument for abstention. I am sorry that the Minister is enjoying my speech so much. If he enjoys it that much before I have developed my argument, he might enjoy it more after I have developed it. There is a case for abstaining on this and other timetable motions. I believe that that is the only way to draw attention to the need for change in the way in which we go about such matters. It is all very well for Conservative Members to make interesting speeches, with which I agree, about the need to change things, but all the time that they or Opposition Members continue to suffer the tyranny of the Whips—whether or not they trap their fingers in doors—and continue to vote for or against timetable motions, the procedure will continue.
A positive abstention will draw attention to the need to change—[HON. MEMBERS: "A positive abstention?"] It is a positive abstention, because it is a rejection of the introduction of timetable motions. Hon. Members may laugh, but they will vote tonight for something that they have already said is wrong, farcical and, in certain circumstances, dangerous. I shall take no part in that procedure. The sooner that we can do something to change our approach to timetable motions, the better it will be for the efficient operation of the House and for the standing of this House in the country.

Mr. John Heddle: I shall not attempt to pursue the path of irrelevance and contradiction followed by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright). Positive abstention is rather like travelling round the country stirring up apathy.
The Committee proceedings and, to an extent, some of the contributions in tonight's short debate can be divided into two categories—dogma and detail. Much of the dogma expounded by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) can only be described as mongrel dogma, and the detail is born of misunderstanding and misappreciation of the factors at work in council offices and in the private sector. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) and for Chipping

Barnet (Mr. Chapman) that this Bill was an ideal candidate for prior consultation. I should not say "consultation" because my hon. Friend the Minister of State and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State consulted comprehensively and extensively about the building control procedure. However, the Committee would have been much better informed and—to use the words of a judge—very much the wiser had we had an opportunity to cross-examine members of charitable housing associations. They, too, would have been better informed and possibly wiser about the Government's intentions. Had that process taken place before the Committee sat formally, perhaps some of the misunderstandings and misconceptions that remain in the minds of those who perform the magnificent, unpaid and unsung service of providing accommodation for those in desperate need, would have been eliminated.
Only yesterday evening, when I made a brief speech in Committee on points that were answered comprehensively by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State about unlimited liability and time-limited liability, the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham)—I endorse the tributes paid to him by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East—suggested that my contribution was getting perilously close to an agreement. There is much in this Bill upon which all parties should agree not in peril but by common consent, because we were all elected to the House to serve the interests of our constituents, the majority of whom share our aims and aspirations.
If one meets a Marxist in a public bar and one buys him two pints, he will admit that the one thing that he would really love would be for his son or daughter to win a scholarship to the local grammar school. Yet, at election after election, he will troop through the polling booths and put a cross against the name of the representative of the party that will never allow him to send his son or daughter to a grammar school. After he has consumed two more pints at one's expense, that Marxist will admit that the one thing that he and his wife would really love would be the opportunity to own whole or part of their home and so to climb the ladder of independence and self-sufficiency that home ownership provides. This Bill will enable him to do that.

Mr. Bob Dunn: During one debate in Committee, Opposition Members said that the sale of council houses was a social evil. How does my hon. Friend believe that Opposition Members would describe members of the Labour party who have bought their council homes?

Mr. Heddle: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. He anticipated a remark that I would have made, and I am glad that he has brought it to my attention now. The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) said—Opposition Members can examine the verbatim record—that home ownership was a social evil. The hon. Member for Edmonton, and the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) did not say that. They were not opposed to the sale of council houses, and they welcomed the opportunity for their constituents to own their own properties. However, they would not condemn or condone local authorities that made it difficult for people to buy their own houses.

Mr. Graham: The words that the hon. Member ascribed to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) must undoubtedly be true. I accept them completely.
Does the hon. Gentleman accept the context in which they were said by my hon. Friend? My hon. Friend served in high office in his local authority, grappling with the problems of the damage done to his ability to serve his electorate by virtue of the right-to-buy provisions. When a Member of Parliament can see the other side of the coin—the damage to his ability to serve his constituents—I believe he has a duty to the House to put both sides of the argument.

Mr. Heddle: I appreciate what the hon. Member has said. This is where party political dogma arises. The hon. Member for Manchester, Central and all other Labour Members, with one or two notable exceptions, now serving on the Standing Committee were members of the Manchester city council. Some were chairmen of the housing committee from time to time. That is as close to a parliamentary closed shop as I have ever come.
Party political dogma has played an unfortunate and unnecessary part in the proceedings of this Standing Committee. I quote two lines from the Labour manifesto in the May 1979 election. Under the subject heading "Homes for All", it says:
We reject the philosophy that tenants are second-class citizens".
It goes on:
Labour does not oppose the sale of council houses to sitting tenants of two years' standing who want to buy, so long as such sales are at a fair price".
During my brief service in the House I have been frustrated by the party political shadow boxing and sabre rattling that goes on in the Chamber, compared with the agreement, mutuality of thought, understanding and respect that each party has for the other elsewhere.
Some of the measures in the Bill—I refer specifically to the shared purchase provisions in part II—actually meet the aims and aspirations of the majority of the electorate. Did I not think that that was so, I would not lend my support to the Bill in principle or in detail, because 500,000 former council tenants have exercised their right to buy—some more quickly than others—since the passing of the Housing Act 1980. The hon. Member for Bootle devoted the majority of his speech this evening to that subject and not to the Bill. Of those 500,000, a considerable number had the good fortune to have their right-to-buy applications processed reasonably speedily, moderately expeditiously and fairly efficiently.
The Act assists many more people who wish to exercise their right to buy and so introduce into their lives that independence, self-sufficiency and pride that home ownership brings. It contains powers to enable the Secretary of State to ensure that the local authorities process these applications speedily, expeditiously and efficiently.
The Bill goes further. Some local authorities have felt that they can deny their tenants the opportunity of exercising their democratic right of home ownership by imposing onerous restrictions and burdensome restrictive covenants. That is a daunting prospect for any of us, let alone those who are dipping their toes into the deep blue sea of home ownership, which contains some technical and detailed procedures in the early stages.
The Bill seeks to ensure that the democratic rights of those people are preserved and that the strong and impersonal arm of local authority democracy is not allowed to get the better of them. I welcome that provision as enthusiastically as the provision to ensure that people who cannot afford to buy the whole of their home now—at the fair price to which the Labour party referred in its manifesto commitment—can buy just a proportion by way of shared ownership. Initially, they will be able to buy 50 per cent., but they will be able to climb the ladder of home ownership and opportunity by increasing the proportion subsequently by 12½ per cent. until ultimately they own 100 per cent. A close examination of the schedules to the Bill will reveal that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reserves powers subsequently to vary that ratio by order.
The hon. Member for Bootle raised a red herring when discussing the relationship between subsidy by way of mortgage interest relief and direct subsidy by way of local authority ownership. I do not wish to dwell on that point, because it is not relevant to the timetable motion. However, the hon. Gentleman suffered from selective parliamentary amnesia by failing to remind the House that the Government have significantly increased the amount that council tenants obtain through rent subsidies and supplementary benefits. Indeed, four or five out of every 10 council tenants now receive significantly more generous rent subsidies than they did during the period of the last Administration.
The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet referred to the fact that enabling the public to have building work certified by the qualified and approved private sector, could be a charter for corruption. The right hon. Gentleman does himself and his profession of the law a great disservice by presuming that chartered civil engineers, chartered structural engineers, chartered surveyors, chartered architects and those who can obtain approval to practise independently, as part of a partnership or as employees within a partnership, can be open to corruption. They can no more be open to the charge of corruption than can building control officers currently employed by local authorities, and I yield to no one in my respect for the professionalism and integrity of building control officers currently employed in the public sector.
The public might be better served if some of those building control officers were employed in the private sector. Certainly my constituent who happens to own 47 Lonsdale road, Radford, Nottingham would be much better served. He drew this matter to my attention only a fortnight ago at my advice bureau in Lichfield. He told me that he owned a house which he wished to let on a shorthold. He wished to provide an opportunity for someone who was no doubt on the Nottingham city council's housing waiting list to rent a home of his own, but before he could do so he would have to obtain an improvement grant to provide that house with the basic essential amenities. The chief executive of the Nottingham city council told the architect whom my constituent had instructed to prepare plans and a specification for the improvement of this three-bedroomed, two-storey dwelling that it would take six months for the application to go through the building regulation approval process.
It was nothing to do with the financial implications or with the consideration of the application by the finance committee of the city council; it was that they did not have


the opportunity, because of the number of applications which the city was currently processing—all tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to the Department of the Environment for making home improvement grants so attractive and so widely available, thus enabling the construction industry in Nottingham and in my constituency of Lichfield and Tamworth to be stimulated—

Mr. Graham: Does not the hon. Member also appreciate that one of the problems for councils in 1983 in trying to deal with work of that kind arises because for the past three years the Secretary of State has badgered and bashed them to reduce the number of their employees, not only throughout their establishments but in this kind of department in particular? Is it not unfair to a council which has been under pressure from all directions, not least from a reduction in the rate support grant, to reduce the number of employees who are able and available to process these applications?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I hope the hon. Member will try to relate his constituent's case to the motion that we are discussing.

Mr. Heddle: I am grateful for your sound advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am open to the charge of not explaining myself to the House as well as I might but I had thought I was illustrating my constituent's case in this context. I take your point and will not therefore be persuaded to follow the path that the hon. Member for Edmonton has plotted for me. I will simply say that, if the provisions of this Bill are subsequently enacted, as is likely to happen more quickly after this motion has been approved tonight, the opportunity will be given to Nottingham city council to pass the building control procedures into the private sector where they will be handled by reputable chartered architects, surveyors, civil engineers or structural engineers, thus relieving the council of the responsibility of processing that application within the six months that it has set itself. My constituent's house will be put into habitable and comfortable condition much sooner, which will in turn benefit the person on the Nottingham council house waiting list.
The public will also be better protected if this motion is passed and the Bill subsequently enacted, because the building control officer, if employed in the private sector, will be subject not only to the rigorous scrutiny of the local authority whose ultimate duty it is to ensure that all buildings are constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by it initially in outline and subsequently in detail, but, if there is any question of corruption, of negligence or of diminution of professional standards, that the approved building control officer will be subject to the disciplinary proceeding of his own professional body or institution. The majority of constituent bodies and institutions which I suspect will receive the advantage of my right hon. Friend's approval will be incorporated by royal charter and their standards will be at least as rigorous, as far as the conduct of their members is concerned, as are those of the body to whom the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford is accountable for his conduct if he seeks to practise his profession in the courts.
I have detained the House for long enough. In doing so I have sought to bring both sides of this Chamber together.

I hope I have persuaded Labour Members that we are not motivated, in seeking to speed the Bill on its way, by petty party political dogma and that what we are doing is seeking to extend the right to buy to as many people as possible, to spread the wealth of this country into as many hands, as many pockets, and as many purses as possible.
I recall the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) saying much the same. People can only take a pride in their home and environment and identify closely with their family and the condition of their family when they have the security that surrounds them day by day—their own front door, their carefully tended garden and their own home. The Bill seeks to do just that. The people, the country, and, most certainly, the local authorities upon whose shoulders the responsibility for providing homes would rest if people were not able to have the opportunity to house themselves, will all benefit. I support the motion wholeheartedly and ultimately wish the Bill godspeed.

Mr. David Winnick: All that the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) and I have in common is that, unlike the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright), we shall not be positively abstaining tonight. That was the explanation given by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East for not voting in either Division Lobby.
I wish to refer to some of the comments that have been made about timetable motions. As an Opposition Member, I am not keen on the idea of agreeing to a timetable following Second Reading. [Interruption.] I realise that the Government Whip likes to intervene in these matters, but I shall wait to see whether the enthusiasm for a timetable persists when those advocating it are in opposition. I do not agree that the Standing Committee procedure is the best in the world and that it cannot be improved. However, the kind of solution that has been proposed is not likely to help. It will certainly not help the Opposition. The possibility of achieving all-party agreement for such a proposal seems remote.
The Opposition agreed at the start of the Committee stage that there was a case for a Special Standing Committee. The Procedure Committee thought that such a Special Standing Committee could be used for hearing and examining witnesses. Opposition Members took the view that it would be appropriate to institute the procedure on a Bill such as that now before the House to enable hon. Members to hear witnesses from the charitable housing associations, which are most affected by part I of the Bill, explain why they objected so strongly to the Bill's proposals. Hon. Members have not received a single letter from charitable housing associations stating that they are in favour of the part of the Bill that provides the tenants of the associations with the right to buy. It would, therefore, be right to hear representatives of the charitable housing associations give their reasons for being so strongly against the Bill.

Mr. Graham: Is it not right that the Committee heard extracts from letters by some tenants who were in favour of and others who were against clause 2? But were not the representations received by hon. Members from the associations themselves unanimously against the provisions of clause 2?

Mr. Winnick: Indeed. I shall return to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth about tenants.
We also pointed out that it would do no harm to have a Law Officer present, bearing in mind the position of charities and the fact that charity law is extremely complex. When the Bill receives its Third Reading in the House, it will not be the end of the matter by any means. The rumour is that much opposition is gathering in another place, certainly about the position of charitable housing associations.
Charitable housing associations have in good faith received assistance from successive Governments since 1974. Now they find that, as a result of receiving that assistance, they will be forced to take measures that they believe to be against the interests of their associations. The associations exist for one purpose only—to provide accommodation for those most in need. Indeed, the Minister for Housing and Construction explained to the Committee the stringent conditions that should be met before anyone is housed by a charitable association. It is understandable that those who have devoted time and energy over a long period to the provision of accommodation for people most in need—in many circumstances, those who cannot be housed by local authorities—should be concerned and angry about what is intended by the Government.
Among the other letters that we received was one from the Salvation Army housing association, which is hardly what one would describe as a Left-wing organisation. In that letter the chairman of the association said:
My association is actively considering branching out to provide, for example, permanent housing for resettled hostel residents and for poorer younger couples entering their first married homes.
We all agree that that is an excellent objective. The letter continues:
The Housing and Building Control Bill as presently drafted will almost certainly bring to an end these plans for new initiatives in our future work. I felt that you should be aware of this discouraging effect of the Bill as you further consider its provisions. We do not see it as our function to provide homes for sale at discount prices.
Some Government Back Benchers have suggested that our criticism and opposition are motivated by party dogma.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Yes.

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman says "Yes". Let us take the views, for example, of the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd). I have given notice to the hon. Gentleman that I intended to quote what he said in the House on 13 December. He pointed out that he had family connections with the Guinness Trust, which is very much opposed to the Government's proposals. Referring to a letter which he had received from the director of the trust, he said:
The indignation expressed in the director's letter is surprising and persuasive, coming as it does from someone who has spent many years of his life quietly helping to provide good housing cheaply for others. The Government's decision to affect charitable housing associations in the way provided by the Bill is likely to lead bodies such as the Guinness Trust seriously to consider whether they should ever accept Government funds to supplement their own funds in paying for housing for poor people."—[Official Report, 13 December 1982; Vol. 34. c. 53.]
Is that Labour party dogma? The hon. Gentleman concluded by urging the Government to be careful about going quite so far down the road as they intended and warned of the difficulties. I do not know what the hon.
Gentleman intends to do tonight about the guillotine motion. This illustrates that the idea that the objections come purely and simply from the Labour party or that this is Labour party dogma at its worst does not bear scrutiny.
Why are literally all the housing associations affected by the measure opposed to it? The explanation is clear. They know the immense harm that will be done to their activities as a result of what is being discussed today.
The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth often lectures us on the need for people to become home owners. Today, he said that it would be good for people to own their own homes. Indeed, he referred to buying pints of beer for Marxists. I am not an authority on the Marxist views of education and so on, but I imagine that the hon. Gentleman has never met a Marxist.

Mr. Heddle: They are usually on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Winnick: Such remarks illustrate once again the political illiteracy of Conservative Members. In their eyes, anyone connected with the Labour movement must be terribly Left-wing, dogmatic and subversive. Conservative Members have not changed their spots at all over the years.
Like the Minister, the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth seems to think that it is almost a fundamental right that tenants should be able to buy their own accommodation. However, if it is all right for council tenants and the tenants of charitable housing associations to buy, why should not private tenants, who are never mentioned by Conservative Members, buy their homes? It is interesting that the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth has never for a moment suggested that he would be in favour of a law giving private tenants the right to buy.
Many tenants in the private sector have to put up with bad conditions. I do not suggest that the majority of private landlords are unscrupulous, but many private landlords and property companies act in an unfortunate and unscrupulous manner. That was said in Committee, and we gave illustrations from the Liverpool area. No matter how unscrupulous their landlords may be, those tenants will not have the right to buy. But the Government and their Back Benchers say that the tenants of local authorities and charitable housing associations should have that right.
It would be a slander to suggest that the Labour party has ever been against owner-occupation. We are in favour of people being in a position to buy their own houses. That is why, in the 1960s, a Labour Government introduced the option mortgage scheme. It was a means, perhaps limited, of providing for those who would otherwise have difficulty in obtaining a mortgage.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the motion.

Mr. Winnick: I am grateful for that guidance, but the motion says that the Bill should be guillotined and this point relates to the Bill.
As a result of the guillotine, there will be insufficient time to examine the clauses that have already seen published. In addition, there are new clauses which will make it all the more difficult for the Bill to be properly scrutinised in Committee. Of course, the new clauses tabled by the Minister are controversial. In the normal course of events, they would be properly scrutinised and examined, but, as a result of the guillotine, there will be


less time available to examine them. If we had more time, we could examine again the question of private tenants and the right of people to buy their own accommodation.
We reject any accusation that we are against owner-occupation. In vain, we urged the Government to take the initiative in dealing with those in acute housing difficulties. For example, in Walsall there are nearly 15,000 people on the waiting list. People are waiting a long time to be rehoused, particularly in urban areas.
The Government do not understand that, while many people will undoubtedly solve their housing problems by owner-occupation, there remain many whose only opportunity of obtaining adequate accommodation is by renting. If they cannot rent from the local authority because of the Government's policy since 1979, they must go to the charitable housing associations. Those associations will be adversely affected by this measure. The Government are doing a grave disservice to those about whom we should be especially concerned.

Mr. Graham: It is not only the charitable housing associations that will have to soldier on and carry out their responsibilities. This measure is against the advice of the Charity Commission. Is it not a disgrace that, despite attempts by the Opposition, the Government have refused to allow a Law Officer to attend the Committee? The Government may land themselves in legal difficulties later.

Mr. Winnick: I have already referred to our request for a Law Officer.
When the Bill reaches another place, there will be many questions and comments about charity law and the manner in which the Government intend to take action against charitable housing associations. Many people will be surprised that a Conservative Government can turn upon charitable housing associations. The Government may argue that they are not doing so, but that is not the view of the associations that have written to us.
As was stated on Second Reading, this is a bad measure. It will do no good for those about whom we should be most concerned who need adequate accommodation to rent. The Government are determined to go ahead with the measure. It is what we would expect from a Government who base their housing policy on dogma and who believe that council housing should be for the benefit of only the poorest in the community. They will not accept the Opposition's view, which has been accepted by successive Conservative Governments, that council housing has an important role to play, as have charitable housing associations.
I shall be happy to vote against the motion tonight.

Mr. Bob Dunn: I am pleased to speak in favour of the motion, having sat on the Standing Committee for more than 90 hours, through 25 sittings, and having heard the words of both sides of the Committee, which are reflected in more than 1,000 columns in Hansard. It is right to proceed to a timetable.
I am in favour of the motion, not simply because I object to the ritual of debate, the dragging on of time and the interventions in speeches—the constant referral from one Opposition Member to another simply to keep the words flowing to use up time—but because it is right that

Conservative Members should press for the enactment of the legislation at the earliest opportunity. We have a duty and a responsibility to those who are waiting to buy their homes in such places as Southwark, Dulwich and Bolton, West.
I was pleased when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House quoted my question to the Prime Minister on 11 February 1982. I asked:
Will my right hon. Friend say whether it is the Government's intention to introduce legislation that would give council tenants living in leasehold properties owned by local authorities the right to buy their council homes?
My right hon. Friend replied:
I am well aware that our pledge at the general election covered those living in leasehold properties belonging to local authorities who wish to buy their homes, but where the local authority does not possess the freehold. Our last legislation did not cover that case. It should be covered. It is our intention to cover it. We have a high priority to do so. I cannot promise my hon. Friend that there will be legislation during this Session of Parliament. However, if not, we shall try in the next Session."—[Official Report, 11 February 1982; Vol.17, c. 1110–11]
I am pleased to say that my right hon. Friend's words have been supported and honoured by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction.
I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for taking on board many of the representations that I have received from hundreds of council tenants outside my constituency. He received them with tact and concern, and I am pleased to note that this has led, ultimately, to the legislative enactment that we are discussing in the form of the motion.
The shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) referred to the timetable and said that he saw no reason why we should not continue for a little longer, in all reasonableness, before enacting the provisions. The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) said that he saw no reason why the Committee stage should not be completed early in March. However, the truth was given by the right hon. Member for Deptford when he said that the Committee stage could be finished some time in April. It would always be some other time, or some other reason for delaying a little longer, perhaps until June, or July, or later.
Many thousands of people who are living in the conditions to which I have referred would be angry if they thought that the provisions giving them the right to buy their homes were not to be enacted by the Government of which I am a strong and proud supporter. The problem for the Opposition is that they are opposed to the sale of public sector houses. The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) said in November:
I am happy to tell the House that we are committed to the repeal of the right to buy." [Official Report, 23 November 1982; Vol. 32, c. 730.]
That was also said by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) in a debate in 1980.
The House will be interested to note that 1,000 of my constituents have taken advantage of the right to buy. That represents 14 per cent. of the housing stock, and, as those who are members of the Committee will know, because I have told them so, it is one of the best results in the south-east region.
The Conservative party believes that the right to buy should fall upon the individual. The Labour party believes that it should fall upon the institution. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said in Committee that


account should be taken of the housing needs of the local authority. He has made that point on many occasions, but I cannot believe that the boroughs of Islington, Camden, Manchester, Salford or Southwark will ever accept that the time has come when houses should be sold to council tenants.
According to The Standard, in the by-election in Bermondsey there appears to be a choice, between Mr. O'Grady and Mr. Tatchell. In his time Mr. O'Grady was responsible for ensuring that 95 per cent. of all the houses in the Bermondsey constituency were owned by the council. Mr. Tatchell would like to see 100 per cent. of the housing in the Bermondsey constituency owned by the authority. That is, apparently, a choice.
I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Bolton, West and for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) for the way in which they have conducted themselves in the debate. I know that this has not been easy and that they have had a difficult case to present. They spun out the time and behaved responsibly, unlike members of their parliamentary bruising team behind them. However, there is a great divide in the Labour party on owner-occupation. I am sure that Labour Members will be pleased to know that, as a result of the right-to-buy legislation, 67 per cent. of all houses in my constituency are now owned by the people who live in them. I shall be happy when that figure increases to 70 per cent. or perhaps 75 per cent.
Revealing and apposite comments have been made by Labour Members. The hon. Member for Bolton, West said in November 1982 that if the Labour party was called upon to form a Government, that Administration would repeal the right-to-buy legislation. The hon. Lady was being honest, in the same way as the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), who visited my constituency and said that a Labour Government would abolish choice in education and force the area to introduce the comprehensive system.
I shall be telling my constituents about those two planks of Labour party policy. I hope that more of its policies will be revealed to me in the next few months so that I can tell my constituents even more about the aspirations of the Labour party. Those aspirations are not being revealed to my constituents by local members of the Labour party. They keep quiet about these embarrassments. I do not intend to go further down that road, because if I did I would surely be called to order.
In February 1982 I was pleased to refer my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the position of tenants living in leasehold properties. I believe that the Bill will stand with the 1980 Act as a major piece of reforming legislation. It will give people the right to choose. We are setting the people free. This has always been a strong tenet of the Conservative party. I hope that we shall continue to implement it. I have great pleasure in supporting the motion.

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman talks about setting people free, whatever that might mean. I am sure that he wants to be consistent in his approach. Does he believe that tenants in the private sector should have exactly the same rights as he is advocating for those in the public sector and in housing association properties?

Mr. Dunn: I take on board the hon. Gentleman's question, which he has raised many times in Committee. I am concerned about the future of the private tenant. I am

concerned that the private sector diminished in my constituency from 15 to 10 per cent. between 1972 and 1982.

Mr. Winnick: Should they have the right to buy?

Mr. Dunn: The object of the debate is to establish whether the guillotine should fall on consideration of the Bill in Committee. We have reached the end of a difficult road in the Committee on which the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) serves.

Mr. Winnick: Should they have the right to buy?

Mr. Dunn: We must now consider the remaining clauses, which relate to other areas of housing.

Mr. Winnick: Answer the question!

Mr. Heddle: rose—

Mr. Dunn: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Heddle: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), to whose intervention my hon. Friend is currently replying, tried to trawl the red herring, if I am not mixing too many metaphors, of the relationship between the public sector tenant and the private sector tenant and his right to buy or otherwise. Does my hon. Friend agree that the private sector tenant has the right to compel his landlord to carry out certain necessary repairs? The private sector tenant has the statutory power, for example under the Public Health Acts and the Housing Act 1980, to ensure that the landlord carries out certain repairs.

Mr. Winnick: What about the right to buy?

Mr. Heddle: That right to require repairs to be carried out does not exist in the public sector.

Mr. Winnick: But what about the right to buy?

Mr. Dunn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. For four years I was a London borough of Southwark councillor. I was one of only four Conservatives on a council of 70. We were outnumbered by 17 to 1, but that proved that one Conservative was equal to 17 Socialists. In Southwark there was an appalling degree of household neglect. That was because the local authority's bureaucracy had been maintained and enhanced to such a degree that it was difficult for the average tenant to get through to those concerned the fact that he had a leaking roof, rising damp or a door that did not fit.

Mr. Winnick: Answer my question.

Mr. Dunn: The issues that we have discussed are bound to be of assistance to council tenants. The private tenant has the rights to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) has referred. Many enlightened landlords are trying to help tenants to buy their houses.

Mr. Winnick: What about the right to buy?

Mr. Dunn: There is a long way to go before we get to that point. Private landlords in my constituency—not many, because there are not many left as a result of the Opposition's legislation—are selling their houses to tenants at fair and reasonable prices. We have a long way to go before we reach the final point when as many people as can afford to do so own the house in which they live.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: Before my hon. Friend finishes his speech I hope that he will find time to say a few words about the purchase of houses by tenants of


housing association properties. He may not be aware of the fact that in my constituency there is at least one housing association that has deliberately thwarted the will of Parliament to such an extent that for two years tenants of that association have not been able to purchase the house in which they live. I believe that that is disgraceful. I should welcome my hon. Friend's views on the subject.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) will confine himself to the terms of the motion.

Mr. Dunn: Of course, I shall confine myself to the motion. I have been about to conclude several times, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I welcome the motion. I regret the need for it, but that has been brought about by several circumstances, not least of which is the ritualistic behaviour of the Opposition.
I endorse much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) said. The House must, at some time, take account and stock of the circumstances of hon. Members who serve on Standing Committees. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), the Government Whip, because at no time during the Standing Committee were we put under pressure by him, the Minister or the Under-Secretary of State to remain quiet. We have given as good as we got on occasions. That must be the right way. With regard to what my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South, said, I hope that Parliament will take account of this obvious abuse of our procedures.

Mr. John Ward: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) and an even greater pleasure to congratulate him on the progress that has been made in privatisation of dwellings in his constituency. Like him, I look forward to the day when 99 per cent. of Dartford is in owner-occupation.
I should also like to pay tribute to my neighbouring Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) who said that there was a need to re-examine our procedures in Standing Committees. Although I have every sympathy with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in all that he does to keep us from erring, I disagree with his comments about the possibility of another look at that procedure during this Parliament.
I belong to that no longer exclusive club that believes that all Bills need some form of timetable motion, if the House is to be seen to be discharging its duties properly, and if, above all, it is to be seen by the electorate not to be wasting time or using the rules of procedure to prolong our activities in Committee.
It seems to become a virility symbol to spend 90 or 100 hours in Committee, to have two or three all-night sittings, to have three or four cups of coffee at about 2 o'clock in the morning and then to have a guillotine. That is a ridiculous way of proceeding. If any state or private corporation behaved in the same way as we go about our business, we should question not only their wisdom but the sanity of their procedures. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will consider the matter further and note the number of signatures—now well over 100—to early-day motion 298.

Viscount Cranborne: It is always a pleasure to find that Dorset Members of Parliament are on the side of common sense and truth. I thank my hon. Friend for his comments in that respect. Would he also consider the effects upon Ministers of the Crown of the long night sessions by which, as my hon. Friend put it, they are trying to prove their virility or that of their supporters—probably both? Does he agree that they put the sound administration of the country at risk? We rely on them to preserve their good judgment for the following morning. If they have been up all night it is extremely difficult for them to do that.

Mr. Ward: I agree with my hon. Friend. That gives me an opportunity to pay my tribute to Ministers, particularly my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, who maintained his good humour and courtesy and kept us all in good order throughout the inordinately long proceedings. It would be a shock to some members of the public if they realised the conditions in which the members of any Government are asked to make decisions. They have super jet lag because they have been in Committee late into the night. That is the wrong way to go about the country's business.
My constituents are becoming very concerned at the delays in the Bill. Many people living in leasehold accommodation want the chance to buy their house. There are others who cannot fully buy but are looking forward to shared ownership. Again I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for the advice that he has provided for Poole borough council, which is anxious to see the Bill on the statute book so that it can proceed with such sales. Potentially we are adding about 50,000 to 55,000 home owners to the list of owner-occupiers. The Opposition may call it dogma, but I believe that it is a good principle of the Conservative party that, at all times, we should do what we can to encourage home ownership.
The second half of the Bill has received less attention than the right-to-buy provisions. I welcome the introduction in the Bill of choice to the consumer by allowing private certification for building control. I hope that in due course the problem of certification will be alleviated by taking a good, long, cool look at the building regulations and, I hope, by separating the technical requirements from the building regulations proper, which have become immensely complicated. The regulations have become about three times as long as they were 10 years ago. I welcome the assurances that have been given that a close look will be taken at them.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) I pay tribute to building control officers, who do a conscientious job. I assure them that in no way is the Bill aimed at their quality or competence. Again the Bill provides the Conservative principle of choice for the consumer. I look forward very much to the streamlining of procedures that will be possible under the Bill.
I revert briefly to shared ownership and the right to buy. We should encourage pride in ownership, wherever it may be. What is better than the pride of owning one's own home? We can make the taxpayers' money available to support those in most need and not go on providing help to those who do not need it and are willing to commit their capital in the form of purchasing the house in which they live.
In the end it all comes down to providing a choice for the people. They do not have to buy the house in which they live. There is no pressure on them to do so. The success of the Minister's policy and the policies of the Government is shown by the fact that a vast number of people are queuing up to buy.
I hope that when the Minister replies he will lift the corner of the veil slightly and reassure us that councils attempting to frustrate the will of the Government will be brought into line. I hope that increasing pressure will be put on those councils to obey not only these measures but the previous right-to-buy legislation.
I hope that the House will pass the timetable motion tonight. The Bill is too important to be allowed to hang about in Committee any longer. I hope that it will shortly complete its Committee and remaining stages and become law.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Leader of the House and several Conservative Members have said that this is an important Bill. It is both important and complex. That is one of the reasons why Opposition Members believe that the Government are wrong to railroad the legislation through the House before we have had time to consider fully the implications of the proposed changes.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) has already pointed out that the Bill is really two Bills. Indeed, parts I and II are connected only by the unfortunate Minister who has seen fit to promote them. Part I is about housing matters, although not housing problems or housing needs. It will not build one new house or improve one old property. Part II is about building control, which is a completely different subject.
Such is the haste of the Government to push ahead with the legislation that not only do we have two Bills in one, but we have limited time in which to discuss the two separate parts of the legislation. Opposition Members serving on the Standing Committee have been dismayed by the Government's undue haste. Every attempt by us to do our job of carefully scrutinising the legislation has been frustrated by Ministers who, rather than deal with the questions asked and problems suggested by my hon. Friends, have chosen to give bland assurances that all will be well once the Bill becomes an Act.
It is clear that Ministers do not know how many of the provisions will operate in practice and have not worked out the details of the legislation. Yet tonight we face a guillotine motion.
It may have been lack of detailed knowledge that prompted the Government to use the closure procedure unduly to restrict discussion of important matters. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) quoted some statistics. I do not intend to quote many statistics, but the hon. Gentleman will remember that in one day alone the closure procedure was used five times in seven and a quarter hours of debate. That is an unprecedented restriction of the rights of Members of Parliament.

Mr. Chapman: Will the hon. Lady say on which amendments the closure was moved? That information might be relevant to her comments.

Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recall that we were discussing the important and complex question of shared ownership. I remind him that those five

closures were moved on a sitting day when the Committee made such rapid progress that we completed debates on five clauses and two schedules. If Conservative Members consider that we were slowing down the proceedings, they should remind themselves of what was happening in Committee at that time.
When so much progress was made in one day, I cannot see how the Government can justify the guillotine today. Certainly nothing that the Leader of the House said justified the motion.
It is not as though the Bill were a minor one. We all agree that it requires considerable attention and detailed scrutiny. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford said, we remain opposed to the Bill in principle. Nevertheless, in Committee we sought to highlight the many practical problems that may well arise. Every attempt that we made was ignored by the Minister, although he knows that there are serious difficulties associated with the working of the Bill in practice.
There are problems not least because the first part of the Bill goes back on the Government's decisions and assurances during the passage of the 1980 Bill. The same Minister said then that the right-to-buy provisions should not apply if the local authority did not own the freehold of the property because of the complexities and difficulties that would arise. Now, in this hastily produced package, he is introducing that which he previously rejected.
The same applies to housing charities. In 1980, in Committee the same Minister said:
There are some important points to be made about the relationship between the right to buy and existing charity law. That is why the essential distinction that we have made is to extend the right to buy to those in the housing association sector who could reasonably fall under the general umbrella of public sector tenants. We take the view that that should not be extended if it conflicts with charitable law."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 29 January 1980; c. 14–15.]
The Minister is now going back on all the assurances then given to housing charities and forcing them to dispose of their properties against their wishes, their better judgment their financial interests and their long-term objectives of providing help for people in housing need. Despite their assurances in 1980, the Government have broken their word and are now actually changing charity law through a housing Bill—and a guillotined one at that.
The Minister should be aware that serious consequences may result from that undue haste. We may see some of them in the very near future. The proposals may yet be the subject of legal action in the European Court. I do not think the Minister has fully considered the implications of his proposals in that respect. Moreover, I understand that the National Federation of Housing Associations and others have appealed to the Attorney-General. He is considering the case and the problems that will face housing charities as a result of the Bill. As part of his role, he is the officer of the Crown responsible for protecting the interests of charities, so he has a special interest in this. Indeed, I understand that his role in this respect gives him extra responsibility directly to the Crown rather than to the Government. It will be interesting to hear in due course what he has to say about the way in which the Bill affects charity law.
Therefore, even if the Government get their way today, we may not have heard the last of the matter as it affects charitable housing.
Part I of the Bill contains the Government's proposals for shared ownership. The Government now say that if a


tenant cannot afford to buy his council house outright, perhaps he can buy half of it—or 62·5 per cent. or 75 per cent. or whatever other figure the Minister may decide at some later date. These proposals will create havoc for many local authorities and housing associations which are already under great pressure. If local authorities take on more staff to deal with these new problems, the Government will clobber them once again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) said, for employing too many people.
The proposals for shared ownership, like the leasehold proposals and the changes for charitable housing trusts, have not been discussed with the people who will have to make them work in practice. That is one reason why the legislation is defective in a major way.
Part II of the Bill deals with the privatisation of building control. There is widespread speculation outside the House that, even if the legislation goes through, the provisions under part II will not be introduced.
Opposition Members have spoken again tonight of the need for revision of the building regulations. Members on both sides of the House agree with that. It is not the point at issue. The Opposition object to the privatisation of building control, the policing, the inspection and implementation of the building regulations. That is where we believe that the Government are treading on dangerous ground. The Opposition believe that part II, as it stands, needs far more consideration than the Government are willing to allow, not least because it gives the Secretary of State more power to change the present, uncriticised, tried and tested system of building control. In future the Secretary of State can, whenever and in whatever way he wishes, allow people, not identified, to undertake building control work. Yet the Secretary of State cannot guarantee that all the problems of liability can or ever will be clarified.

Mr. Graham: He never will.

Mrs. Taylor: The Minister undertook consultations. While everyone agrees that changes in the building regulations are necessary, none of the professional bodies or others outside the House supports what the Minister is doing. The Royal Institute of British Architects, the Institution of Structural Engineers, the Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Master Builders Federation are all opposed to what the Minister is doing, and the Government are now curtailing our opportunity to voice the fears of such esteemed and professional bodies. The Government will be in serious difficulty, once the measure comes into operation, if we have had no chance to explore fully the problems that might arise.
In Committee we have tried to obtain information from the Minister about how he intends the Bill to work in practice. It has been difficult, because the Minister has not been co-operative, and because the word "prescribed" is mentioned 57 times in the Bill. The Government's haste is so great that they cannot be bothered to work out the details of the legislation; they simply want to take more powers to themselves. If we wanted further proof of the Government's haste and the fact that the legislation has not been thought through fully, we had it this morning with yet more Government amendments being presented on the day that the guillotine motion is before the House.
This morning we were presented with another part of the Bill, which is almost a Bill in itself—four new clauses covering four sides of the Amendment Paper. They will all need to be debated in the limited time allowed by the Government. The new clauses do not tell us much. They are typical of the approach adopted by the Minister. To illustrate that point I shall quote new clause 16 which the Minister has just tabled:
Regulations under this section may make such procedural, incidental, supplementary and transitional provision as may appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary"—

Mr. Graham: He does not know his own mind.

Mrs. Taylor: —"or expedient."

Mr. Graham: Typical.

Mrs. Taylor: That sums up the Government's attitude to the Bill. They want us to leave it to them to do what they believe is expedient. The Government are frightened of scrutiny of the Bill. We are opposed to it in principle, but we wish to scrutinise it in detail. The Government are afraid of that procedure, but we are not. We wish to continue to discuss the Bill. We shall vote against the motion this evening.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): We have had a wide-ranging debate that has oscillated between a discussion of the general procedures of the House in respect of timetable motions, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) made a most thoughtful speech, and the much narrower issue of the timetable motion on this Bill, to which I shall address my remarks.
The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) made a most significant remark on Second Reading. She said:
The Opposition resent the fact that parliamentary time is being spent on such irrelevant measures."—[Official Report, 23 November 1982; Vol. 32, c. 725.]
That was a strange comment for her to make in view of what has happened in Committee since then, because it is clear that once the Bill went to Committee, the supposed resentment of the Opposition about spending time on this Bill died a rapid death. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) said in an excellent speech, the Opposition's tactics in Committee have been to expend much time and make slow progress. Although the Government are moving the timetable motion, it was undoubtedly precipitated by the action of the Opposition in Committee. As I shall demonstrate in some detail, it is clear that the Opposition took a deliberate decision to go exceptionally slowly.
The hon. Lady's chief instrument of delay has been the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). The hon. Gentleman, from whom we heard a great deal in Committee, has performed like the parliamentary equivalent of a cement mixer. He has been churning on and on and on in the same spot. He has gone round and round the amendment under discussion and has poured out with unfailing regularity a remarkable diet of glutinous sludge. He has done so during 23 speeches and 120 interventions. Even by the hallowed traditions of this House, the hon. Gentleman has given us a new insight into the meaning of the word "repetition".
However, I would not do justice to the other Opposition members of the Committee if I did not mention their contribution to securing some delay in the progress of the


Bill. All Opposition Members have contributed to its slow progress to date. I must make an exception of the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright), the Social Democratic member of the Committee, because his contributions have been to the point and relatively brief.
However, the hon. Gentleman made a fascinating speech tonight that I am sure is destined to become a textbook classic for the SDP. His speech will be read out at every candidate's conference as the model political posture for an aspiring SDP politician. The hon. Gentleman told us with great ernestness and conviction why he felt unable to vote for this motion. He then told us with great earnestness and conviction why he felt unable to vote against this motion. Then he told us with great earnestness and conviction why he was resolutely determined to adopt a policy of "positive abstention" tonight.

Mr. Cartwright: I am sorry that the idea of positive abstention seems strange to the Minister. It does not seem strange to some of his hon. Friends. Ten of his hon. Friends abstained positively last night on the immigration rules. Does he have the same attitude to them?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that, having voted for the Bill on Second Reading, there is some consistency in trying to get it through to Royal Assent. Labour Members have all made a signal contribution to the delay. To win one's campaign medal for the Labour party in Standing Committee F, one had to make an hour-plus speech as many times as possible. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, West. She has led her troops from the front and has already gained the hour-plus medal with three bars.
If any Labour Members are in any doubt as to the slow progress, an interesting comparison can be made between the progess made on this Bill and the progress made on the Housing Bill in 1980. If the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) adopted a hare-like posture in 1980, whereas the hon. Member for Bolton, West has decided to play a tortoise role in 1983. The present Bill has 40-odd clauses and is confined to only two major subjects. The 1980 Bill contained 120 clauses and covered 10 major subjects.
Despite being one third the length and infinitely narrower in scope, the progress of the present Bill through Committee has in every way been markedly slower than that of the 1980 Bill. The Bill has now been in Committee for a total of 90 hours.
In the same number of hours in Committee in 1980, vastly more progress had been made than on this Bill. It dealt with the right-to-buy legislation from scratch, as well as with the whole of the tenants charter, shorthold provisions, the assured tenancy provisions, other private rented sector provisions, fair rent phasing, controlled tenancies, resident landlord lettings, and a host of other matters. All that was achieved in the first 90 hours of the Standing Committee proceedings on the 1980 Bill.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Disgraceful.

Mr. Stanley: It is symptomatic of the hon. Lady's attitude that she describes that as disgraceful. It is fortunate that the right hon. Member for Ardwick, who came top in the shadow Cabinet election, has mercifully vacated his place.
After 90 hours in Committee on the 1980 Bill, we had reached the end of clause 79. After 90 hours in Committee

on this Bill, we had only reached the end of clause 22. That is a difference of more than 50 clauses for the same expenditure of time. That is the clearest possible sign of the extent to which the Opposition have sought to delay progress on the Bill.
Had the Opposition done no more than achieve the same rate of progress on this 43-clause Bill as they made on the first 43 clauses of the 1980 Bill, this timetable motion would have been completely unnecessary, as consideration of the Bill would have been completed in 50 hours. It would now be out of Committee and have been reported to the House. No guillotine motion has been more self-evidently brought down on themselves by the Opposition than this one.
The Government have sought to achieve progress in the normal way. There have been references to that in the debate. The Government, quite reasonably, sought to move the closure 12 times in Committee. On 11 of those 12 occasions, the Chair accepted that that motion should be put to the vote. That is the clearest possible sign that the Chair felt that the amendments concerned had been fully debated.
Despite our efforts to make progress with the Bill, it is clear that greater progress must be made if the opportunities provided by the legislation are to be put into effect.
As my hon. Friends made clear during the debate, a great many people—in particular, many council tenants—simply cannot afford to wait months and months for their new legal rights under this legislation.
Thousands of families up and down the country are waiting for the enactment of the Bill with eager and urgent anticipation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) said, thousands of tenants have been frustrated in exercising their right to buy because, for example, their homes are on leasehold land and their Labour-controlled councils want to take every possible opportunity to prevent them from buying their homes, even to the extent of refusing to accept the freehold interest as a gift after the tenant has bought it himself. Tenants throughout the country on leasehold land want the Bill to make more rapid progress, to receive full consideration and enactment. Many tenants in Bolton, including tenants in the hon. Lady's constituency, are looking to her to represent their interests tonight so that they get their rights under this legislation. I am sorry that it looks as though they will be disappointed because their own Member of Parliament is obstructing their wishes to buy their homes in Bolton.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister explain to the House and to my constituents, for whom he has such touching concern, how the thousands of people on the waiting list in Bolton will be helped by the Bill?

Mr. Stanley: In the same way as many people are now being helped—by the hundreds of millions of pounds in capital receipts at the disposal of local authorities to increase their housing investment programmes.
In addition to tenants whose homes are on leasehold land, many thousands of tenants of charitable housing associations are looking forward to the enactment of this legislation. Many thousands of relatively low income tenants are looking forward to exercising their right of shared ownership. Tenants in the city of Norwich are anxiously waiting for the enactment of clause 17. They will get back their right to buy, of which they were so


disgracefully cheated by Norwich council's device of telling its tenants that they could not exchange their homes unless at the same time they deprived themselves of the right to buy. That scandalous device will be invalidated by this legislation.
The adult children of tenants, some of whom have been paying rent for 20 or 30 years, have not been allowed a penny of discount by some Labour councils. They too will get a discount entitlement under the Bill. A considerable number of tenants are facing unreasonable covenants and conditions that have been imposed on their right-to-buy purchases. They may be able to benefit from our proposal to enable the Secretary of State to assist tenants who feel that they have unreasonable covenants. They will be able to take legal action, and will be assisted in doing so, so that there is a proper opportunity for a court to decide whether or not the covenants are reasonable.
It is quite clear that many thousands of tenants are seeking to excercise their right to buy, but will be able to do so only if there is satisfactory progress on the Bill.
The Opposition have made it unmistakably clear that they are not interested in securing a reasonable rate of progress on the Bill. Their tactics are quite plain, and have been since the first session of Standing Committee F. The Opposition's tactics are to delay the Bill for the longest possible time in the hope that it will be prevented from reaching the statute book by an early general election. Their objective is to spin out consideration of the Bill until the late summer. It would be wrong to deny Parliament this opportunity to reach a decision on the Bill because of the months of delay that have been fabricated upstairs. It is a highly beneficial Bill, and I therefore ask the House to support the motion.

Question put:—

The House divided: Aves 297. Noes 219.

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Committee

1. The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 1st March 1983.

Report and Third Reading

2. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after midnight on that day; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of that day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 43 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be moved to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

dilatory Motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for three hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of three hours.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of three hours.

Private business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not

previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10. — (1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-Committal

12. — (1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—



"allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
"the Bill" means the Housing and Building Control Bill;
"Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
"Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales)

Mr. John Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I rise to ask for your guidance on the next business listed on the Order Paper—the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order 1983, which was laid by the Home Secretary before the House on 7 February. If you will be good enough to allow me to develop my point of order, I will point out that the Home Secretary lays the draft Order in Council under section 3 of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949.
A draft order may be of two kinds. If no modifications are proposed to the Boundary Commission report, it is simply a draft order giving effect to the recommendations of the Boundary Commission. On the other hand, if there are modifications to the recommendations then, additionally, the Home Secretary must lay before Parliament a statement of the reasons for the modifications. I understand that there is no such statement laid here. Indeed, the order's explanatory note states:
This Order gives effect without modification to the recommendations contained in the report of the Boundary Commission".
Unhappily, that is not the end of the matter. If, as appears on the face of it, the Home Secretary, by his inaction in not laying an additional statement before Parliament because he does not believe that he is introducing modifications to the recommendations of the Boundary Commission, is wrong; if he has misconceived the position; and if there is a modification, he has not done his duty to Parliament. He has not laid before it the statement that is required in accordance with the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949. Section 3(3) of that Act states:
Where any such draft gives effect to any such recommendations with modifications, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament together with the draft a statement of the reasons for the modifications.
As the Home Secretary has not laid the required statement before Parliament, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, must be satisfied before proceeding with the order that the preliminaries have been met. If the Home Secretary has not done his duty, it would be quite wrong and contrary to statute for us to discuss the order.
I shall draw attention immediately to the factual basis for my concern. There is at the very least ambiguity about the status of one ward in the borough of Neath, in the county of west Glamorgan. The same ambiguity applies to the borough of Brecknock in the county of Powys. Page 5 of the draft order refers to Neath—presently the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman)—to the borough of Lliw Valley wards Nos. 4, 7 and 8, and to the borough of Neath wards Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 to 16. I want to know exactly what ward No. 11 comprises. If it is the old ward No. 11 that existed before 1 January 1983, it refers to, and is part of, a constituency that falls short of a county boundary—west Glamorgan. By 21 January the county boundaries had been changed as a result of the Neath (Communities) Order 1982 which was laid before the House not by the Home Secretary, but, in accordance with form, by the Secretary of State for Wales. The effect of the order, which was made on 3 December 1982, was to subtract a piece of west


Glamorgan and place it in ward No. 13 in the borough of Brecknock. It adds a piece of Powys to ward No. 11 of the borough of Neath in west Glamorgan.
I am sure that the House is well aware that a boundary commission may cross a county boundary only by reason of rule 5 of the second schedule to the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949, which states:
The electorate of any constituency shall be as near the electoral quota as is practicable having regard to the foregoing rules; and a Boundary Commission may depart from the strict application of the last foregoing rule if it appears to them that a departure is desirable to avoid an excessive disparity between the electorate of any constituency and the electoral quota
That is the nub of the provision—to remove excessive disparity between electorates.
Those conditions do not exist in the area to which I refer, and neither has it been argued at any time that the exception should come into force. There is an addition to one county and a subtraction from another, and the provisions would cancel out one another to some extent. Therefore, no one in his senses could argue the excess disparity rule.
I leave that particular limb and turn to the alternative limb. If it is—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but he must come to his point of order rather than go into detailed argument.

Mr. Morris: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not often trouble the House with a point of order. I feel that I should be allowed to develop my point, which I shall do as briefly as possible. At the outset of my remarks, I spelt out the basic point that I seek to argue. It is my duty to draw your attention to the basis upon which I make my submission—otherwise, it would have little effect.
If it is to be a new ward, rather than ward 11 that has existed since 1 January, the Home Secretary is modifying the Boundary Commission's proposals. In those circumstances, he must follow the 1949 Act and make a statement on his reasons for the modification. You asked me to come to my point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Home Secretary has not made that statement, and we are troubled about that.
Article 2 of the draft order purports to define constituencies
as they existed on 21st January 1983, except where otherwise stated.
That obviously kills ward 11. As I have said, ward 11 has been modified by the Neath order. The Secretary of State for Wales did that on 3 December, and it came into effect on 1 January 1983. We know, therefore, the definition of the Secretary of State for Wales of ward 11 since 1 January 1983. However, we cannot be sure of the Home Secretary's definition as expressed in the draft order.
In either case, whether the two Secretaries of State are of the same mind or not, there is need for a new order to be submitted either, first, by way of modifying this order, or, secondly, by making a statement of the reasons for the modifications.
The Boundary Commission for Wales, in recommending proposed new constituencies on the basis of how the wards stood on 21 January 1983, should have taken account of the changes in the Powys-west Glamorgan boundary resulting from the Neath order.

One reason why they should have done so is that it affects the way that the Home Secretary appoints a returning officer. If an election occurs after the coming into effect of the draft order, as I am sure that it will, it appears that the Home Secretary will have to take account of the Neath order as regards such an appointment.
How is the returning officer appointed? The Boundary Commission purported to ignore the existence of the Neath order; and there are two operational days in that order. The first is 1 January 1983 and the second is 1 April 1983. Article 41 (a) Local Government Area Changes Regulations 1976 says:
The following are purposes for which the order shall come into operation on such day earlier than the appointed day as may be specified therein (a) the application of sections 39 and 40 of the Local Government Act 1982.
The Neath order, for the purposes of section 40 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, came into effect on 1 January 1983. That section refers to the appointment of returning officers, of which there are two sorts. The first, under section 41 (a) in the case of a constituency that is coterminous with, or wholly contained in a county, is the sheriff of the county. In another case, under section 41 (c), in the case of any other constituency, it is such sheriff or chairman of a district council as may be designated in an order made by the Secretary of State.
While it is not clear from the Home Secretary's order when he regards the Neath order coming into effect, there is a clear inference from the Boundary Commission that the Neath order has not come into effect. I have a letter from the secretary of the Boundary Commission—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Member is adducing an argument, but I should like him to put his point of order to the Chair. He has now been on his feet for 10 minutes, and I have been listening very carefully, but I wish to get to the point of order.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is a very complicated matter.

Mr. Morris: The last thing that I wish to do is to offend the Chair. I am almost coming to the conclusion of my point of order, which I stated at the beginning. I hope that what I have said in addition has been merely by way of providing a factual basis for the point of order, as to whether there should be a statement laid before Parliament in support showing whether it is an order that has been modified or not.
The matter of how the Secretary of State for the Home Department would appoint a returning officer for parliamentary purposes is of the utmost importance. I was about to say, and this goes to the very heart of the matter, that the Boundary Commission has ignored the existence of what took place by way of the order introduced by the Secretary of State for Wales in December, which comes into effect on 1 January.
Mr. G. P. Barnes in his letter to me on 31 January this year says:
The Neath (Communities) Order 1982 was made on 3 December 1982 and comes into operation on 1 April 1983.
That is a clear demonstration, and puts it beyond peradventure, of when the commission thinks that the Neath order came into effect.
The Boundary Commission seems to have misunderstood the effect of the Local Government Area Changes Regulations 1976 and ignored what is stated in the Neath order as regards the date that it comes into effect on 1


January 1983. Given that the officers of the Boundary Commission for Wales believe that the order does not come into effect until 1 April, how can the Home Secretary appoint an appropriate returning officer under the appropriate part of the statute? When there is no crossing of a county boundary, the returning officer is the sheriff. When there are no coterminous boundaries, the returning officer is the sheriff or the chairman of a district council as designated by order.
Bearing in mind the anxiety that I have expressed and the need for the Home Secretary to clear the preliminaries before it is in order for him to introduce the order and for us to debate it, I submit that it appears that there is more than one difficulty in being satisfied that the order is in proper form. In any event, the Home Secretary should not move the order now. He should return with a fresh order, having satisfied himself that it meets the real fears that I have expressed.

Mr. Brynmor John: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you showed some impatience with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), I wish to advance two short arguments in support of his submission. First, I ask you to consider the matter carefully. Although it seems to be a purely Welsh matter, it is one that may be duplicated in the English and Scottish orders that will come before the House in due course. Clarification now can only be to the advantage of the House.
Secondly, my right hon. and learned Friend referred to a letter dated 31 January 1983 from the Boundary Commission for Wales, although the exact date of it is open to some doubt. However, it refers to a letter that my right hon. and learned Friend wrote to the commission on 18 January. It cannot be said that he has taken the Government or the commission by surprise. He gave the commission plenty of notice of his request and it chose to ignore him, to the extent that he wrote to it on 18 January and it made the order on 21 January. The order was completed on 24 January.
If my right hon. and learned Friend's arguments are right, we are left in the following position: if the commission did not take into account the Neath order, it has crossed county boundaries to an extent to which it is not entitled by reason of its statutory powers under rule 5. If it took account of the order, despite what it said in the clear terms set out in its letter, the Home Secretary has a duty to the House to say that he is modifying the commission's proposals. In either case we are entitled to question the present position and to ask you to give it careful consideration.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I support the submission put to you so cogently, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and congratulate him on his diligence and on the degree of research that he has undertaken. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) said, the issue is not limited to Wales. It is of wider application throughout all the constituencies of Great Britain. It is an issue that appears at first sight to be technical, but it is fundamental to our constitution.
Obviously, there is no statement attached to the order of the reasons for the modification or whether account has been taken of the Neath order. The Home Secretary has a statutory duty to make such a statement if the order includes some modification of the recommendations of the Boundary Commission for Wales. Similarly, rule 5 is clear about the limited circumstances in which the county boundaries can be crossed.
On any reading of the order, there are no disparities in this case. There must be if the crossing of county boundaries can be justified. Therefore, in either event, the order as currently drafted is defective and I call upon you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as have my colleagues, to ensure that the constitution in this case is upheld and that the order is returned so that the Government can put their house in order and present the order in its proper form.

Mr. Ray Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not a member of the legal profession, but I should, nevertheless, like to draw your attention to the fact that I am given to understand that the secretary of the Boundary Commission for Wales is supposed to be independent of the Home Office, yet he is now sitting in the civil servants' Box.
My other point of order is that I tabled an amendment to the draft order. I was advised that I was able to table an amendment, but then I was given to understand that the amendment could not be called because the order is not amendable. It is ludicrous that we are faced with an order that deals with 36 constituencies in Wales and my constituency of Ogmore, and I can submit an amendment to amend an order that cannot be amended.
I submit that I, my colleagues and some Conservative Members agree with 35 of the recommendations for constituencies in Wales, but that in regard to one constituency we should like to object to and amend the order. Therefore, I ask you to consider the matter, because I feel that it is ludicrous and crazy for us to be able to submit an amendment to the order but cannot be called because the order is not amendable.
Finally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you, will recall that earlier today I asked you whether, when we came to debate the order, you would extend the time set down to consider it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have not even started the debate. That point is not for consideration now.

Mr. Keith Best: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is this not actually a point of order for the House? If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary publishes modifications to the Boundary Commission's report, he is obliged to publish a statement of reasons with it. What Opposition Members have been raising as a point of order is that, in their submission, the Boundary Commission has not complied with its own rules. That is not a point of order for the House. At the most, it is a matter for adjudication in the courts because the Boundary Commission is bound by the rules of legislation. In my respectful submission, it is an entirely bogus point of order.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Member is a bag carrier for the Welsh Office.

Mr. Best: It is no good Opposition Members— [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Other right hon. and hon. Members who have raised points of order have been heard in silence. The hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) has an equal right to be heard.

Mr. Best: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall conclude my point of order. With great respect to the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), it is no good his claiming that I do not understand the point that he has made. If there is any misunderstanding, it is entirely as a result of the way in which he expounded the matter, not as a result of my powers of comprehension.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Despite what the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) has said, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) has raised an important point about the validity of the order that the Government are introducing today. It is not a point of limited application. The order has far-reaching effects with regard to the ultimate legality, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, of the appointment of returning officers. If the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order 1983 takes account of the Neath (Communities) Order, and if my right hon. and learned Friend has accurately described the territorial effects of that order, it is clear that that order makes a substantial modification of the Boundary Commission's recommendations. The Home Secretary is clearly required to state his reasons for that modification. Equally clearly, the Home Secretary has not stated his reasons for that modification.
If the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order does not take account of the Neath order, it includes two new constituencies—Neath, and Brecon and Radnor. It is clear that those constituencies cross the country boundaries as amended by the Neath order.
As my right hon. and learned Friend said, in amending community boundaries in Neath that order also alters the county boundary in two places. Under the statutory rules, which are clear, for constituency redistribution, the Boundary Commission cannot recommend constituencies crossing county borders unless such crossing is necessary to avoid excessive disparities between electorates. It is not suggested in this case that there are such excessive disparities in the west Glamorgan-Brecon area.
In either of the two cases that I have described, the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order 1983 should be withdrawn and modified either to include a reason for the modification or to take account of the Neath order. That is what the Government should do tonight. My right hon. and learned Friend has clearly shown that there is a risk that the order may turn out to be invalid.

Mr. Donald Coleman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the assumption that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) could be right on his point of order and that the Secretary of State has failed to fulfil his statutory duties but it is ruled that the order can be moved and it is passed by the House, can I be given some guidance? What recourse have my constituents, who would be affected? Secondly, what certainty is there that the order will be valid?

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Having listened to what my

right hon. and hon. Friends and Conservative Members have said, and without knowing in advance the point that was to be made, one thing that has particularly struck me is that at this stage, at any rate before we hear what, if any, reply comes from the Government Front Bench, the House must be in doubt as to the boundary that is intended for the two constituencies that are affected by the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). That in itself is something that Parliament cannot accept. If Parliament is asked to debate and subsequently to approve an order without knowing what the effect of that order is, that is something that Parliament ought not to be asked to do. Furthermore, the electorate cannot be asked to accept a provision that Parliament has passed into law without knowing what the effect of that provision may be. Therefore, I support what my right hon. and learned Friend has said.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) for giving me notice that he intended to raise that point of order, as it enabled me to look into the matter very carefully. I have to inform him and other right hon. and hon. Members who have tried to help me with their points of order, however, that, although what they have said is perfectly valid as grounds of argument in the debate on the motion, it does not give me any reason to withhold from consideration of the House a motion whose terms are entirely in order and relate to an order that has been properly laid and which has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, so I think that we must now move on.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given my ruling.

Mr. Anderson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a different point of order?

Mr. Anderson: It is a point of clarification.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that that can arise. I have given my ruling. I do not think that any further point of order can rise on it.

Mr. Anderson: It is a related point concerning the validity of the order. As I understand your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have said that the points are well founded but that, nevertheless, the order will proceed. What is then the answer to the point about the uncertain status of the constituency boundaries that will result and to the very important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) about the problems relating to his own constituency and indeed to the returning officers involved?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Those are very valid points to raise in the debate, which I believe should now take place.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given my ruling. The matter has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and in my judgment the motion is in order.

Mr. John Silkin: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems to me that since, as I understand it, advance notice of this point has already been given to the Home Secretary—

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): That is totally untrue.

Mr. Silkin: I understood that that was so. Whether it was or not, however, perhaps the Home Secretary or someone on the Treasury Bench will give us the Government's explanation of how this has arisen. With respect, I do not see how we can possibly go ahead until we have heard from the Government on this, before there is any possibility of the order being moved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the House should allow the Minister of State to give his explanation in moving the order.

Hon. Members: No.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: On another point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that this one is relatively simple. It relates to the spelling of names in the draft order.
On page 4 of the order, in the definition of the proposed Vale of Glamorgan constituency, reference is made in the penultimate line to a ward called "Peterson-super-Ely". In the corresponding recommendation on page 95 of the report of the Boundary Commission for Wales, however, the definition of the Vale of Glamorgan constituency includes a ward called "Peterston-super-Ely". There is therefore a difference between the spelling in the report and that in the order.
The point is very simple. The spelling in the order is either correct or incorrect. If it is correct, it represents a modification of what is included in the report of the Boundary Commission. The Home Secretary should therefore have tabled his reasons for that modification. However, if the spelling in the draft order is incorrect it should be corrected. The Home Secretary should go away and return to the House later with a corrected order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That may well be so, but it does not make the motion that we are about to debate invalid. I call the Minister of State to move the order.

Mr. John Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It must be a different point of order.

Mr. Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you for your tolerance and patience when I moved my first point of order. You told me that my arguments were well-founded, for which I am grateful. I shall, in future as in the past, prefer to take guidance from you rather than from the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) who described my point of order as bogus, which I regard as an insult.
Having regard to the fact that it is well founded and that the order is properly laid, should it not be incumbent upon the Home Secretary, before the order is introduced, and now that it has been challenged—I have no recollection in my perhaps too long time in the House of such a challenge being made and of the Home Secretary sitting dumb in his seat—to assist you and the House on whether he is satisfied that the text of the explanatory memorandum on these regulations is valid now having regard to my "well-founded" observations. The same point is made by my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) about modifications. How can a matter which, on the face of the record, is different to what is in the Boundary Commission's recommendation, not be a modification?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. To correct the right hon. Member, I believe that I said "well-founded grounds for argument", which is rather different from what he is trying to say.

Mr. John Silkin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether it would help the House— [Interruption.] I believe that the House requires some help and certainly the Home Secretary does. Plainly, as the Home Secretary cannot deal with this matter, the best solution might be for the House to adjourn.
I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
I hope that you will accept the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It will enable the Home Secretary to consult, I should hope among others, the Attorney-General. The Home Secretary tells us, and I believe him, that he was unaware of the points that have been raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall). It is a complicated point. It seems to me, therefore, that it would be correct to allow sufficient time for the matter to be considered properly and for the Home Secretary to return to the Dispatch Box and give a proper, authoritative reply. There can be nothing worse than for this matter, which has been lucidly put, to be misunderstood and for an order such as this to be moved and for the Home Secretary to have to come to the House to withdraw it and apologise. I know that he would not wish to do that.

Mr. Skinner: No.

Mr. Silkin: The best thing would be to adjourn the House for a reasonable period—an hour or so—during which the Home Secretary can obtain all the advice that he will. The Attorney-General can be brought to the House to give such explanations as are necessary.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not able at this juncture to accept a motion for the Adjournment of the House. The Minister of State has not had—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.—any opportunity to give an explanation. I call the Minister of State to move the motion.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that I can help the House with the two points that have been raised. The substantive point of order raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) was based upon the Neath (Communities) Order. He founded his point on the fact that there was at least, as he put it, ambiguity about the relevant boundaries upon the fact that the Neath order had been made. He will know that the Neath order takes effect in April this year, and the order with which the House is concerned tonight deals with that matter.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary must give reasons if he proposes to modify any recommendation of the Boundary Commission. The draft order is not accompanied by any statement of reasons because it gives effect only to the recommendations of the Boundary Commission. The House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 requires that, if the draft order is only to give effect of the recommendations of the Boundary Commission, no reasons must be provided. That is exactly the position here. The commission's recommendations for


Neath are based upon the present wards and boundaries, as is the draft order. No modifications have been made. If a constituency boundary were subsequently to cross a county boundary because a community order coming into effect later—in this case in April—changes the boundary, there is provision in the Act for the commission to deal with it in an interim order. However, it has no bearing upon the question with which the House is concerned—whether the effect of the order is to give exact effect to the recommendations of the Boundary Commission, which it is.

Mr. John Morris: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister is arguing that the Neath order comes into effect on 1 April 1983. If he is wrong and the Neath order comes into effect not on 1 April 1983 but on 1 January 1983, would he reconsider what he has just said? Paragraph 4(1) (a) of the Local Government Area Changes Regulations 1976 states:
The application of section 39 and 40 of the Local Government Act 1972.
That may relate to 1 January 1983. That parent Act sets out the matter in exactly the same way. That is the difficulty that we have. I should be very grateful, now that the hon. and learned Gentleman has nailed his colours to the mast about 1 April 1983, if he will tell us what will happen if he is wrong. What if the date is 1 January 1983? Do not those regulations then come into effect?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Mayhew: My duty to the House is to set out what I understand the position to be and not to engage in speculation about what it might otherwise be. I have tried to explain that the wards about which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is talking do not yet exist. The draft order gives effect to the commission's recommendations without modification, because the constituencies are based upon wards and not upon communities. The recommendations of the Boundary Commission are not based upon wards that do not yet exist.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that we have exhausted points of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
The points of order now being raised are not matters for the Chair. This is a matter of argument between the two sides of the House. The only points of order that I can deal with are those raised on matters that are the responsibility of the Chair. I have already ruled that in my judgment the motion is perfectly valid. The order has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the House should now proceed with it.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can I draw your attention to Standing Order 121? The administration of Standing Orders is a matter for your attention. Under Standing Order 121, there has to be an explanation if a statutory instrument is not laid properly before the House. That is not in question at the moment. There has to be an explanation as to
why such copies have not been so laid before the instrument camc into operation, Mr. Speaker shall thereupon lay such communication upon the Table of the House.
It is accepted by both sides of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is an omission so far as a statement of

reasons is concerned for this order. You accepted my right hon. and learned Friend's outline of the deficiency in the statement of reasons so far as this order was concerned.
Under Standing Order 121, if that statement of reason is a valid requirement under the legislation as outlined by my right hon. and learned Friend, and this question has not been raised in the House before, surely that statement of reason should be treated as part of the statutory instrument. As it has not been laid, there should be an explanation as to why it has not. The statement should be laid by yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the Table of the House in order for both sides of the House to consider that statement. This is an important point. It might arise on future similar orders. As a statement of reason applies in this narrow area, it would be fair and equitable for you to rule that such a statement of reason should come under Standing Order 121 so that it is laid on the Table by your direction and submitted beforehand by the Government. That would require the Government to submit a reason why their statement of reason had not been tabled along with the statutory instrument so that the matter could be considered by the House.
That is something you would need to consider at your leisure rather than rush into a hasty decision on hasty advice from the Clerk. On that point, the House could be adjourned for proper consideration of the matter. I hope that you see in your wisdom that Standing Order No. 121 should apply to this statement of reason as a supplement to a statutory instrument, which is clearly set out as being subject to that standing order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is Chairman of the Statutory Instruments Committee, which passed the order as being in order.

Mr. Cryer: Mr. Deputy Speaker, it appears that a statement of reason is required. The statement of reason should be treated as a statutory instrument. I made the point at the beginning of my submission that this statutory instrument has been properly laid. Standing Order No. 121 clearly does not apply to the instrument itself, but it should apply to any statement of reason that accompanies the statutory instrument, otherwise there is no opportunity for a statement of reason to be considered. Standing Order No. 121 specifically allows for reasons where an instrument is not properly tabled to give the House an opportunity to examine it. That is why Mr. Speaker has the power to lay such communications on the Table.
Where a statement of reason, which is inextricably linked to the statutory instrument, is deficient, surely Standing Order No. 121 should apply as much to the statement as to the instrument. The instrument has been properly laid, but the statement of reason has not. I therefore ask you to treat the statement as coming under Standing Order No. 121, to ask the Minister for such a statement, and to require it to be laid on the Table of the House so that it can vbe properly considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Neither the hon. Gentleman nor his Committee asked for any such communication. They passed the order as valid. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is on a good point at all.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. John Morris: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am taking no more points of order on this subject.

Hon. Members: Oh.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move,
That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 7 February, be approved.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. John Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have three hon. Members on their feet at one time.

Mr. John Morris: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is a long time since I heard anyone in the Chair say that he would take no more points of order. It goes back to 1962, when there was uproar in the House when that point was made. I respectfully suggest that that does not assist our real concern that the proprieties are observed by the Home Office when it brings legislation or orders before the House.
I repeat that I still require guidance on this fundamental point. Having regard to what the Minister of State said a moment ago—that he relies on the fact that the Neath (Communities) Order comes into effect on 1 April 1983—how does he reconcile that with what is contained in article 2(1) of the order, which states that it comes into effect on 1 January 1983? We still have not had an adequate explanation on that point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was directing his question to the Minister of State and not to me. That is not a point of order for the Chair. I have already ruled on that.

Mr. Mayhew: The Boundary Commission for Wales submitted its third periodical report—

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Skinner, on a final point of order.

Mr. Skinner: Several Opposition Members—not primarily from the Benches below the Gangway, but Privy Councillors and other of my right hon. Friends, many of them in the legal profession—have advanced arguments about the verification or otherwise of the date of operation of the Neath (Communities) Order. You have said that you have considered the matter raised by my right hon. and learned Friend at your leisure as you had been given prior notice. Since you made that ruling, there has been an altercation between the Minister of State and one of my right hon. Friends about whether it was 1 January or 1 April.
In his response to the point of order, the hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was a matter of speculation. Those were his words, not ours. I suggest that this is a very sensitive matter for all hon. Members, including yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This matter should be considered properly by Mr. Speaker when he returns. I am concerned to know what all the hurry is about. Is it a matter of a day? Or a couple of days? What is the frantic hurry? Why cannot the Home Secretary and his Ministers explain precisely whether the date is 1 January or 1 April?
There is speculation. There is doubt. There is ambiguity. All arose, Mr. Deputy Speaker, after you had

made your original ruling. I am not suggesting that your original ruling was in doubt. The speculation arose because of the ambiguous answer by the Minister of State. In view of that, we should adjourn to allow the matter to be dealt with. It would be possilbe for Mr. Speaker to inform the House of his findings tomorrow.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I repeat that the matter has been considered by the Statutory Instruments Committee and found to be in order. I have given my ruling. I find the motion in order. So far as the Chair is concerned, no further points of order can arise on that. What is now at issue is argument across the Chamber. The Minister of State has not had an opportunity to deploy his argument.

Mr. John Silkin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is purely a matter for the Chair. Since you made your ruling, there has been considerable controversy. There are some unanswered questions. The Home Secretary has said that he did not know about the points that have been raised. I accept what he says 100 per cent., unreservedly. In the light of this, is it not sensible that we adjourn for a short time while— [Interruption] I am trying to help. Hon. Members can continue this as long as they like. Is it not sensible that we adjourn to obtain an answer to the points that have been made? They have not yet been answered. I accept that they may not be a matter for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but they are a matter for the House. The House should know. It would be the worst thing in the world if an order that subsequently turned out to be defective was moved on this occasion. I suggest a short adjournment to find out the answer to the points that have been raised. This should not take long. If there is any difficulty, it may be possible for the Attorney-General to be summoned to give his ruling.
A short adjournment might help the House to resolve what is a difficult matter. This is not a passing point of order. It is an important, and, I would hasten to say, fundamental matter for the whole House to consider. In the light of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you accept such a motion now?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: At this juncture, I would not accept such a motion. The debate has run for not much more than six or seven minutes. The hon. and learned Gentleman should now be allowed to proceed with the arguments that he has not yet had the opportunity to put.

Mr. Mayhew: The Boundary Commission for Wales submitted its third—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) said that the points being put to me were not matters for the Chair. I have given my ruling. The Statutory Instruments Committee has passed the order. As far as the Chair is concerned, the motion is in order and I think that we should get on with it.

Mr. Mayhew: On the matter—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have six or seven hon. Members on their feet at the same time. As far as the Chair is concerned, no point of order can arise. Certainly matters of argument can arise, but the Minister of State must have an opportunity to deploy his case.

Mr. Mayhew: I will begin—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have twice said that the Statutory Instruments Committee has approved both orders. That Committee is charged with the duty to consider whether each of the orders is in order in relation to the law under which the instrument is made. The point that has been raised in the House tonight is not on whether the orders are correct but on the relationship of the two orders to each other. It surely was not the duty of the Statutory Instruments Committee to consider the relationship of the two orders to each other.
As a member of that Committee, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), I do not think we could be expected to take each order and test it against every other order that is laid before the House, as opposed to testing it against the powers in the statute under which it is being made. Therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for you to rest your case on the fact that we approved it is unfair to the Committee, because the Committee had only to test whether the two orders themselves were in order, as opposed to the question that has been raised tonight, which is the relationship between the two orders and the date on which they come into operation.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. I must answer the point of order first. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments considered this order on 8 February and did not find it necessary to draw the attention of the House to it. It has been fully discussed and considered.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Mayhew: I think that I can assist the House on the matter that has been raised—

Mr. Cryer: rose—

Mr. Ioan Evans: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I had called the Minister of State.

Mr. Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will not take it at this moment. I have called the Minister of State.

Mr. Mayhew: Having moved the motion, I think that I can assist the House—

Mr. Cryer: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced parliamentarian. I have called the Minister of State to give his explanation.

Mr. Ioan Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have not called the hon. Gentleman to make his point of order. I have called the Minister of State to give his explanation.

Mr. Mayhew: If the House is genuinely concerned with the question that has been put, I hope that it will allow me to answer the point raised by the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin). I think he conceded that if I was correct in saying that for all material purposes the Neath (Communities) Order comes into force on 1 April 1983, his point fell.
The right hon. Gentleman then questioned whether that was the case. I can tell him, as appears from the face of the order, which is Statutory Instrument No. 1751, that for

the purposes described in article 2(1) of the order it comes into force on 1 January 1983, and for all other purposes it comes into force on 1 April 1983. Therefore, we need to examine the purposes embraced in article 2(1). They are these: preparatory matters only; preparation of register of electors; constitutions of community meetings; appointments of officers; the incurring of expenditure; valuation lists and other such matters. The things that come into operation on 1 April 1983 are changes to the communities and the county boundary. I therefore repeat that the Boundary Commission's recommendations are based on existing boundaries, and the draft order before us relates to those boundaries. If there is a subsequent change by virtue of an order that comes into effect on 1 April 1983, it can be dealt with by means of an interim order, for which the Act makes provision.
The Boundary Commission for Wales—

Mr. John Morris: rose—

Mr. Ioan Evans: rose—

Mr. Mayhew: The Boundary Commission for Wales submitted its third periodical report on 21 January, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State proposes that—

Mr. John Morris: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) knows perfectly well that the Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Morris: rose—

Mr. Evans: rose—

Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State proposes that its final recommendations should be—

Mr. Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall take a point of order from the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans).

Mr. Ioan Evans: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I raise this point of order because the Minister rose to give an explanation. Having given an explanation, he should not go on to deal with the order. Why is there such undue haste? We are discussing the parliamentary boundaries for Wales. The people of Wales will want the House to conduct itself properly. The Chairman of the Statutory Instruments Committee has virtually said that information has come to light in points of order tonight of which the Committee was unaware in reaching its decision.
The Home Secretary is a fair man in such matters, and my only point for him to consider—through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—is why the issue cannot be clarified before the order is discussed. The Minister has already given two differing opinions. He is not fully conversant with the situation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) has suggested, we should adjourn the House, as that would be fair.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister is in the process of explaining. I should point out that we are already on the order—[HON. MEMBERS: "No".]—Order. We are already on the order—

Mr. Edward Rowlands: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker: On what basis did the Minister rise to his feet? We understood that he rose on


a point of order— [Interruption.] He did not move the order. We understood that he rose on a point of order, and that was the basis on which he tried to answer the point. Will you rule whether the Minister rose to his feet on a point of order, or whether he started to move the order?

Mr. John: Further, to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I called the Minister to move the order some 15 minutes ago— [Interruption.] Since then, other points of orders have arisen. The Minister is now in the process of moving the order and of giving his explanation. — [Interruption.] The House must be fair. Varied and complicated points of order have been put to the Minister—not to me. I called the Minister to move the order and give his explanation. He is in the process of doing so.

Mr. Mayhew: As I was saying— [Interruption.]

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is unusual for a Welsh debate to see such behaviour. The House is anxious to hear the Minister's explanation— [Interruption.]

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House is anxious to hear the Minister.

Mr. Mayhew: Article 2 of the order substitutes the constituencies— [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), raised his point of order at some length. It was a complicated point. I am sure that he, of all people here, is anxious to hear what the Minister has to say—

Mr. John Morris: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must have proper debate in the Chamber. I judge that the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to hear what the Minister has to say. [Interruption]

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. John Morris: Did I hear the words "Kick him out" a moment or two ago?

Mr. John: I heard them.

Mr. Mayhew: rose—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot hear what is being said.

Mr. John Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let it be put on the record that the Home Secretary, from a sedentary position, said "Kick him out"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful".] That is dishonourable. The Home Secretary owes the House an apology. He is supposed to represent law and order. While the right hon. Gentleman is contemplating his responsibilities and whether he will acknowledge those words, I must tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am amazed to find that you originally called the Minister to move the order. We raised a series of points of order and the Minister was positively invited by you to give an explanation to the House. Under what heading, other than a point of order, could he give such an explanation?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House is doing itself a great disservice by behaving in this manner. We should now calm ourselves and allow the Minister to continue with his speech.

Mr. Mayhew: If the House wishes— [Interruption.]

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have taken two or three points of order, and I am not taking another.

Mr. Mayhew: If the House wishes— [Interruption.]

Mr. Ray Powell: rose—

Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) does not sit down, I shall have to ask him to leave the Chamber.

Mr. Mayhew: Article 2 provides— [Interruption.]

Mr. Ray Powell: We are dealing with the boundaries of Wales—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

Mr. Mayhew: If the draft order is approved by both Houses, my right hon. Friend will—

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no point of order. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) is indulging in argument. If the hon. Gentleman does not now resume his seat, I shall have to order him to leave the Chamber.

Mr. Mayhew: Article 1(2) provides that the order comes into operation on the fourteenth day after the day on which it is made—

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Ogmore does not have a point of order. I have already ruled upon it.

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not having an argument with the hon. Member for Ogmore.

Mr. Mayhew: —but the new boundaries will take effect only at the first general election to be held thereafter.

Mr. John Silkin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Minister is trying to give part of a speech intending to move the draft order, would you be kind enough to tell the House at what time you asked for the order to be moved, because I fear that none of us on the Opposition Benches heard that? Perhaps you could inform the House whether this is part of the debate on the order and, if so, at what time the order was moved?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: At 11 minutes past six o'clock [Interruption.] Even I am becoming confused. The order was moved at six minutes past Eleven o'clock.

Mr. Mayhew: The commission gave notice on 23 February 1981 of its intention to proceed, and since then has taken just under two years—

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Member for Ogmore tries to interrupt again, I shall ask him to leave the Chamber.

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not taking another point of order from the hon. Member.

Mr. Mayhew: This is a notable achievement when one considers the statutory requirements and detailed procedures—

Mr. Ray Powell: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about his amendment, I have to tell him what he well knows—that it has not been selected.

Mr. Ray Powell: rose—

Mr. John Silkin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How is it possible for an order to be moved before you have told us whether amendments have been selected?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), who is much more experienced in length of parliamentary service than I am, knows that there can be no amendments to orders of this kind.

Mr. Mayhew: —the care it has taken in formulating its proposals. I am therefore confident that the House will join me in thanking all those who have served as members of the commission, of which the Speaker is the ex-officio chairman—

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. John Silkin: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call the Shadow Leader of the House on another point of order.

Mr. Silkin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which is needed as, when I am putting points of order to you, I do so on behalf of the House, and do not wish to be interrupted while I am doing so. As you, perfectly rightly, told my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) that his amendment had not been selected, and I understand the reasons why, should it not to have been done at the beginning before the Minister was called to move the order? Then everything would have been in order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has been Leader of the House and he is now Shadow Leader of the House. He knows that when these orders are laid it is in order to table amendments to them, but they are never selected for debate. Therefore, it was not necessary for me to make an announcement.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Mayhew: The House will thank them for the speedy and meticulous conduct— [Interruption.]

Mr. Ray Powell: rose—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to accept any more points of order. We are already

debating— [Interruption.] Order. The House is not showing itself in a very good light. We are debating the order and we must proceed in a proper parliamentary fashion.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Mayhew: —of this review and the detailed explanation of the final recommendations in the report. I should also like to record our thanks to the assistant commissioners for the careful and conscientious way in which the commission approached its task.

Mr. Cryer: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) to resume his seat.

Mr. Ray Powell: rose—

Mr. Mayhew: It has sought to apply the statutory requirements of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Acts 1949 and 1958, and the rules made thereunder, so as to take account wherever possible for local preferences. It would be impossible, of course, to reconcile these conflicting demands in every case, but we believe that the commission has, nevertheless, been remarkably successful in that difficult task.
I turn now to the recommendations themselves—

Mr. Ray Powell: rose—

Mr. Cryer: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Members for Keighley and Ogmore (Mr. Powell) to resume their seats.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Mayhew: The implementation of the final recommendations will increase the number of constituencies—

Mr. Ray Powell: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has raised several points of order and there have been points of order for nearly one and a half hours.

Mr. Ray Powell: rose—

Mr. Cryer: May I raise a point of order about the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House is doing itself a grave disservice by behaving in this manner. I think that we should now proceed to debate the order.

Mr. Mayhew: —in Wales to 38, two more than at present, and alter most of the existing constituencies to varying degrees. Only the present Anglesey, Caernarvon and Montgomery constituencies will remain unchanged in area. There will also be a reduction in the number of borough constituencies from 10 to six and a corresponding increase—

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Ray Powell: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Members for Keighley and Ogmore to resume their seats.

Mr. Mayhew: —and a corresponding increase in county constituencies from 26 to 32.
Changes of this radical nature were essentially forced on the commission by the changes to the pattern of local government which had taken place since the last general review, and by movements in the electorate.

Mr. Ray Powell: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Member for Ogmore kindly to leave the Chamber.

Hon. Members: Disgraceful! Why?

Mr. Mayhew: When the commission began its review, nine of the existing constituencies crossed the new county boundaries; now the number is 12 in consequence of recent orders made on the recommendation—

Mr. Ray Powell: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ray Powell: I have objections on behalf of my constituents.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Canavan: I spy Strangers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Canavan: I spy Strangers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I order the hon. Member for Ogmore to withdraw immediately from the House for the remainder of the sitting.

The hon. Member withdrew.

Mr. Canavan: I spy Strangers.

Mr. Mayhew: —of the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales. In other words, one third of the present constituencies in Wales cross county boundaries now. Inevitably if that situation was to be rectified major changes had to take place. But at the same time population shifts in Wales have resulted in wide disparities between the electorates of different constituencies. On top of other considerations we had under the rules also to take geographical considerations into account.

Mr. Canavan: I spy Strangers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What did the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) say?

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I spy Strangers. I beg to move, That Strangers do withdraw.

Notice being taken that Strangers were present, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 115 (Withdrawal of Strangers from the House), put forthwith the Question, That Strangers do withdraw:—

The House divided: Ayes 41, Noes 125.

Division No. 70]
[11.40 pm


AYES


Anderson, Donald
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davidson, Arthur


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Cant, R. B.
Dixon, Donald


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Dubs, Alfred


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Cowans, Harry
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Cryer, Bob
Evans, John (Newton)





Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Rowlands, Ted


Haynes, Frank
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


John, Brynmor
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Snape, Peter


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Wardell, Gareth


McWilliam, John
White, Frank R.


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)



Morton, George
Tellers for the Ayes:


Parry, Robert
Mr. Dennis Canavan and


Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.


Prescott, John



NOES


Alexander, Richard
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Ancram, Michael
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Aspinwall, Jack
Lyell, Nicholas


Banks, Robert
McCrindle, Robert


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Macfarlane, Neil


Beith, A. J.
Major, John


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Marlow, Antony


Best, Keith
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Bevan, David Gilroy
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Mayhew, Patrick


Blackburn, John
Mellor, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Bright, Graham
Moate, Roger


Brinton, Tim
Morgan, Geraint


Brooke, Hon Peter
Mudd, David


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Murphy, Christopher


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Neale, Gerrard


Buck, Antony
Needham, Richard


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Neubert, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Newton, Tony


Churchill, W. S.
Normanton, Tom


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Osborn, John


Cope, John
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Cranborne, Viscount
Pattie, Geoffrey


Dorrell, Stephen
Penhaligon, David


Dover, Denshore
Proctor, K. Harvey


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Rhodes James, Robert


Durant, Tony
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Emery, Sir Peter
Sandelson, Neville


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Sims, Roger


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Smith, Sir Dudley


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Fox, Marcus
Speller, Tony


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Goodhew, Sir Victor
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Goodlad, Alastair
Squire, Robin


Gow, Ian
Stainton, Keith


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Grist, Ian
Stevens, Martin


Gummer, John Selwyn
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hampson, Dr Keith
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hawksley, Warren
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Heddle, John
Thompson, Donald


Henderson, Barry
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Home Robertson, John
Viggers, Peter


Hooson, Tom
Waddington, David


Howells, Geraint
Wakeham, John


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Wells, Bowen


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Wheeler, John


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Wigley, Dafydd


Knight, Mrs Jill
Wilkinson, John


Lang, Ian
Winterton, Nicholas






Wolfson, Mark
Mr. Anthony Berry and



Mr. Carol Mather,


Tellers for the Noes:

Question according negatived.

Mr. Mayhew: At the outset, the commission decided to use district wards as the building blocks for its new constituencies—

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Mayhew: —thus at that level minimising the extent to which local ties would be disrupted—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Cryer.

Mr. Cryer: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy speaker. I genuinely want to help the House on this.
First, I think that it is beyond contradiction that the start of the debate by the Minister was somewhat obscure and difficult to follow. Therefore, I suggest that either you start the debate again as the Minister has been gabbling and it has been difficult to follow his arguments, and re-time the debate on that basis, which would be fair and allow everyone to listen properly to the debate, or that you express now your intention to exercise your power under Standing Order No. 3 to state that because of the importance of the subject you will allow the debate to run for longer than the hour and a half. It would be helpful to the House if you would make it clear now that you intend to do just that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall certainly give consideration to that when the hour and a half is fully taken up. I can certainly say that to the hon. Gentleman. Now, however, I think that the Minister must continue.

Mr. Mayhew: In making recommendations for constituencies the commission is required to give effect to the rules set out—

Mr. Denzil Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Mayhew: —in schedule 2 to the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act—

Mr. Davies: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already ruled on that point of order. I do not think that any further consideration can arise out of it.

Mr. Davies: On a new point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You said that you would give consideration to extending the debate. Does that mean that you will exclude the time taken for the Division, or will you take the hour and half from 11.6 pm?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The debate began at 11.6 pm. Anything that has gone on thereafter, including the time of the Division, comes out of the time of the debate. I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows that.

Mr. Mayhew: —printed as appendix A of the report. The cumulative effect of those rules is to confer a wide discretion on the commission—

Mr. Harry Cowans: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Mayhew: —in the way it tries to reconcile—

Mr. Cowans: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Cowans—a new point of order.

Mr. Cowans: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell)— [Interruption.] If Government Members listened they might hear the point of order. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore has been removed from the Chamber purely for exercising his democratic right to speak on behalf of his constituents. Will you rescind that order and allow my hon. Friend to return to the debate so that he can exercise his democratic right on behalf of his constituents?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows exactly why the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) was ordered to leave the Chamber; it was not for putting any arguments on behalf of his constituents, because at that moment he had not been called upon to speak. That question did not arise.

Mr. Mayhew: —equal representation with the need to preserve local ties and take account of the difficult terrain in parts of Wales. Such a task calls for a high degree of judgment, integrity and impartiality, which is why the Commission, under the ex officio chairmanship of Mr. Speaker, is led by a High Court judge and comprises other members acceptable to all the major parties. It would therefore be inappropriate for any Home Secretary to modify a Boundary Commission's recommendations unless there were wholly exceptional grounds for so doing.
The Commission originally set about reducing the present disparities—

Mr. Peter Snape: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I realise that it has become the practice, under this Government, for Ministers to gabble through ministerial briefs, but it is difficult for those of us who are interested in Welsh affairs— [Laughter.]—to follow the gist of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech if he persists in pointing his nose at the Dispatch Box and gabbling the words at his present rate of knots. Could you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the guardian of the rights of the House, kindly instruct the Minister, as I said earlier amid ribald laughter, that those of us who are interested in hearing the full debate about Welsh matters should be properly allowed to do so? The Minister for once should carry out his duties properly.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is on to a very good point. It was difficult to hear exactly what the Minister was saying because of the noise in the Chamber. If other right hon. and hon. Members take account of what the hon. Member has just said, we shall all be much better off.

Mr. Mayhew: —the same number as at present—one of which crossed the county boundary between Powys and Gwent and another of which divided the town of Bangor—by including—

Mr. Rowlands: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You referred to your discretion a moment ago and said that you would exercise it on whether to extend the debate. Will you tell us when you will exercise that discretion and what time you will give us?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: At the end of the one and a half hours. I thought that I had made that very plain to the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies).

Mr. Mayhew: Following consideration of the representations received and the assistant commissioners' reports, it decided that one extra seat should, in effect, be allocated to Gwynedd and Powys respectively, because of special geographical considerations and, in the case of Powys, because the crossing of the county boundary was strongly opposed. The report contains other examples of the flexibility—

Mr. Denzil Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has a valid point of order.

Mr. Davies: You told my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) that at the end of one and a half hours you would consider extending the debate. Will you extend the debate at that time?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a hypothetical question. Under Standing Order No. 3, if, in my judgment, sufficient time has not been allowed for this debate, I shall certainly consider extending it. If it will help the House and enable us to continue, I say now that, at the end of one and a half hours, I shall give very careful consideration to an extension under Standing Order No. 3.

Mr. Mayhew: Lastly, I mention the objective of securing evenness in the distribution of the electorate. If one compares appendix C, the current position, with appendix G, the commission's recommendations, it is clear that the commission has here again been remarkably successful. Only five of the 38 recommended constituencies, as compared with the present 21, have an electorate which varies—

Mr. Joseph Dean: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have no doubt that this debate tonight will, in some respects, create history. Will it he the first time that Hansard has been unable to follow any part of the Minister's speech because it has been delivered so terribly, so quickly and is so difficult to catch and understand?

Mr. Mayhew: In all the circumstances, my right hon. Friend has accordingly concluded that there are no grounds to justify modifications to the final recommendations, which I believe the House can confidently accept.

Mr. Alec Jones: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Question is,
That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 7th February, be approved.

Mr. Jones: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for putting the Question, because most of us were unaware that the motion had been moved.
I must say at the outset that we Welsh Members of Parliament are extremely grateful for the tremendous support that we have received this evening. I have never known so many people to be present for a debate on Welsh affairs.
It is clear from the early exchanges challenging the validity of the order that there is still considerable doubt about whether the order should be made in its present form. It is true that the Government, if they are so disposed, can push through the order with their majority,

but it is equally true that we have had no adequate explanation in answer to the points raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and many of my hon. Friends. We heard a small portion of the Minister's speech, but the little bit that was understandable provided no explanation.
If the order is found to be defective, we shall have done no service either to the House of Commons or to the Welsh constituencies that are affected by it. Any Government in their right senses would have taken away the order, and we should not have been subjected to the offensive comments by the Home Secretary about my right hon. and learned Friend.
The order is supposedly based on the preliminary recommendations of the Boundary Commission, which were published in June 1981, but the final proposals that we are discussing are so far removed from the original proposals that they must cast serious doubts on the value of the original proposals and the procedures by which they were drawn up.
The original proposals appear to have been drawn up purely as a mathematical exercise with the aid of a flat map, as though all the valleys, mountains and communities in Wales did not exist. One could take many examples to illustrate that point. I had intended to cite south Glamorgan, but for other reasons I shall not do so this evening. However, if one wished to find an example of how badly the first proposals were drawn up, one could not think of anything worse than the suggestion that Aberfan should be taken out of the Merthyr Tydfil constituency.
How could anybody in his right senses believe that Aberfan should not be part of Merthyr? That shows what little thought went into those original proposals. Flow anyone claiming to have any knowledge of Wales could make such a proposal defies belief.
The commission in its early days seemed to be totally unaware of the strength of community feeling in Wales. Once the communities were alerted to the problem, they were so incensed at the original proposals that they soon took up arms at the local inquiries. At those local inquiries, political parties of all persuasions played honourable roles, not least my own party. Frequently, opposing political parties supported the same proposals.
Throughout Wales, theatre clubs, rugby clubs, allotment associations and various groups of people were associated in their objections to the original proposals at the local inquiries.
The changes between the original proposals and the revised proposals that we are now discussing show the value of public participation and involvement in this exercise. At the same time, grave doubts were cast on the competence of those who drew up these bird-brained proposals for the Commission.
Despite some successes by local communities following the local inquiries, other changes proposed in the order we are debating tonight deal a heavy blow to many existing communities throughout Wales.
Tonight's order proposes to transfer north Pembrokeshire to Ceredigion, despite the fact that all the organisations present at the local inquiry, with the exception of the Pembrokeshire Conservative association, outrightly condemned the proposal. Even that association, at the inquiry, requested the commissioner to amend its written evidence to read:


alter the words 'accept the recommendations' to 'does not accept the recommendation'.
Nevertheless, the views of the local inquiry were ignored and that transfer is to take place. These proposals play ducks and drakes with historical communities and destroy existing communities. There are numerous examples of this. Ebbw Vale and Abertillery are to be merged into one constituency, Rhymney is to be split from Tredegar to Ebbw Vale, and Porterdown and the upper Swansea valley are to be transferred from Gower to Neath. One could repeat this throughout Wales. Hirwaun, Cefn and Brynmawr are being transferred from Brecon-Radnor, and the old industrial areas of Wrexham are now being detached from Wrexham. One could find many examples, including the fact that the historic borough of Newport is now to be divided.

Mr. Rowlands: Not only was there nonsense in the case of Aberfan and Merthyr being transferred to another constituency, but the commission never produced a shred of evidence at any inquiry to justify its proposal. Is that not in itself a most curious proposition? It never came forward with any justification for the proposal at any time.

Mr. Jones: I agree with my hon. Friend. I was not satisfied, and I do not think the House ought to be satisfied, in view of the initial proposals, with the guidelines and instructions given to the commission. I think the House would do a service to itself and to our people if we tried to ensure that in any future boundary redistribution the problem that Aberfan illustrates should never arise again.
Apart from those areas which still feel strongly, two particular areas are concerned, one of which I have to mention because my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) has had to leave the Chamber. The Commission insisted and still insists in these proposals on an east-west division of the Bridgend and Ogmore constituency, despite the fact that the local inquiry put overwhelming weight on, and opinion expressed to that inquiry was in favour of, a north-south split.
The commission accepted the counter-proposals for Cardiff almost in total, but still insisted, without any adequate explanation, that Radyr and St. Fagan's should be placed in Cardiff, West rather than in Cardiff, North.
We started off with 18 constituencies in Wales below the electoral quota. After all this redistribution, we end up with 24 constituencies below the electoral quota, five of them more than 15 per cent. below. One wonders whether the whole exercise was worthwhile.
Despite what has happened this evening and the fact that the debate will be extremely curtailed—hence my remarks will be similarly curtailed—I do not believe that a one-and-a-half hour debate is sufficient to discuss the full implications of this order. What has happened tonight is clear evidence of that. There is dissatisfaction with the orders, which are extremely complex. That was illustrated by the various points of order that were raised.
Had this debate lasted more than one and a half hours, some of those points could possibly have been dealt with then. However, one and a half hours is not sufficient to give full weight to the points behind the recommendations.
The House must look extremely foolish outside, when our procedures allow us to table amendments but do not allow us to vote on them or to discuss them. I refer not only

to the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore, who, had he been present, would have spent some time on his amendment, but to the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer). The hon. Gentleman and I do not agree on many political issues, but we agree on other things. His amendment
regrets the Boundary Commission's proposals for the County of Clwyd wantonly and unnecessarily destroy three of the existing four county constituencies".
Those are pretty strong words. The hon. Gentleman rightly felt so strongly about this issue that he tabled that amendment, yet such are our procedures that it cannot be discussed or voted on. That makes a mockery of placing amendments on the Order Paper. In truth, these amendments are not worth the paper they are written on. That is not good either for boundary redistribution or for Parliament.
The commission's proposals should not be regarded as quite as sacrosanct as we seem to regard them, particularly in view of the extensive differences between the first proposals and tonight's order. If the commission was so sure that its first proposals were reasonable, why is only one Welsh constituency now subject to its original proposals? I hasten to add that it is my own constituency, so I am relatively unbiased.
If the commission's first proposals were changed so drastically to suit political parties of all persuasions and hon. Members in all parts of the House, it does not say much for the way in which they were drawn up. The House would be well advised to look at this again. It should consider how the commission is set up, as well as the guidelines that we give it.
The House and certainly the Government, who have responsibility, should urgently re-examine the constitution of the Boundary Commission, the guidelines under which it operates and our procedures for dealing with this report. Until that is done, there will be constant repetition, I fear, of what took place tonight and we shall not achieve boundary proposals that are acceptable to the people of Wales or to the House.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) has said, although I dissociate myself from the earlier efforts by the Opposition to cheat the hangman's noose at the last moment.
I have some hard things to say about the boundary commissioners. Had it been possible for an amendment to be called, I should certainly have voted for it. I believe that the boundary commissioners in Wales had a comparatively easy task compared with that which faced the boundary commissioners in England. There are no rotten boroughs in Wales. There are no deserted city centres. All that the Boundary Commission had to do was to tidy up to take account of recent shifts in population.
It is not unfair to say that in every county where they could make a mess of it the boundary commissioners did so, and that whenever a sensible solution stared them in the face they chose a silly one. In every county, except one, local indignation forced them dramatically to revise their proposals. The one exception is the county of Clwyd, which has the fastest growing population in Wales, and which clearly needs a fifth seat. The fifth seat could easily


have been brought into existence by carving a piece off each of the existing four seats, while leaving the heartland of those four seats intact.
I can take my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan) and the hon. Members for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) and for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) to some point between Mold and Wrexham where none of us could be certain of the constituency. All four constituencies meet at that point. It could have been the centre for a newly carved out constituency that would have left all the existing constituencies intact. It was the obvious solution. The Conservative associations in Clwyd put up a carefully worked-out proposal on these lines. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Denbigh defended the proposals brilliantly before the commission at the inquiry. The Conservative proposals met all the criteria put forward by the commission. They were much closer to the electoral quota than the commission's own proposals. They were also similar, to a startling degree, to proposals put forward by the Labour-controlled Wrexham Maelor district council.
Faced with these perfectly reasonable proposals, the commission listened—we thought attentively—to what we had to say. I thought that the oratory of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Denbigh had convinced the commissioners. What is their answer? The report states:
The only alternative solution for Clwyd as a whole which remain for consideration are the Wrexham Maelor/Clwyd Conservative proposals. On balance I consider the Clwyd Conservative proposals slightly the better of the two because they involve no division of Rhuddlan borough and because they achieve electorates closer to the average than Wrexham Maelor's proposals and indeed than the Commission's own proposals.
One would conclude therefore that the commission had accepted our case. The report goes on:
Had the matter been a simple choice on the merits"—
one would have thought, heaven knows, that the commission was in the business of making simple choices on the merits—
I would have on the whole preferred the Conservative counter proposals to the Commission's proposals because whilst both plans have their merits and their disadvantages I feel that the Conservative counter proposals have the balance of advantage especially in the Wrexham and Rhuddlan areas, two of the County's most populous regions.
It continues:
The Conservative counter proposals were supported by three of the six districts, resisted by the other three and were either not supported or were actively resisted by Liberals, Labour Party, Social Democratic Party and Plaid Cymru.
The final and astonishing conclusion is:
I see no sufficient reason to suggest any change in the name or the outline of any of the proposed constituencies.
In other words, because the Liberal party, the Social Democratic party and two out of four of the Labour parties in Clwyd saw electoral advantage in the commission's proposals, the commission decided that a bad solution was preferable to a good one.
There is a further slap in the face from these faceless men. Since 1552, in the reign of Edward VI, representatives from the constituencies of Flint and Denbigh have sat in the House. Indeed, they were here when the hon. Member for Calais took his seat below the Gangway. He was the last, I believe. Now the commission has abolished these 400-year-old names and replaced them with the supremely forgettable Clwyd North West and South West.
I remind the House that the Speaker is a representative of the noble city of Cardiff. I wonder how many hon. Members can say whether it is north, south, east, west or mid-Cardiff that he represents. I have to look it up.

Mr. John Morris: Good Lord.

Sir Anthony Meyer: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says, "Good Lord." He frequently refers to me as the hon. Member for Flint, East.
The damage has been done. We Conservatives in Clwyd dared not risk the expense of legal proceedings against the commission, although I am sure we would have won. The new seats will come into being. Those of us who are fortunate enough to be relected as candidates and eventually elected should devote all our efforts to getting to know the new constituencies, welding the new associations into one and forging anew the close personal and political bonds that bind an MP to his party workers and to the wider circle of his electors.
I shall not vote against the motion, because of the importance of safeguarding the independence of the Boundary Commission—even this inept and insensitive commission which has done its work so badly.

Mr. John Morris: May I assure the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) that it would be the last thing in the world I would do to confuse him with my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones)? I was surprised at his confession that he was not aware that the Speaker is the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West. There it is. We live and learn in the course of these debates.
I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's concern and his strictures and the strictures of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East against the Boundary Commission. There was a feeling in some parts of Wales that the commission had adopted the flat map approach. In defence of the Commission, its proposals for West Glamorgan received tremendous approval in all but one part of the county. The record should be put straight; while there was dissatisfaction in many parts of Wales with the commission because its approach was so unrealistic, certainly in west Glamorgan that was not the position.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the time limit of one and a half hours for discussion of such a subject and the fact that we are not allowed to table amendments are two matters worthy of serious consideration. When in due course the proposals of the Boundary Commission for England are to be debated, again only one and a half hours will be allowed to deal with a greater number of constituencies. It is intolerable when one considers the time span of the Commission and realises that its recommendations will remain in force for the best part of 50 years.
If the Home Secretary and the Minister of State had been more ready to respond to the points made earlier and if they had not sat there dumb in their seats, much of the difficulty would have been avoided. Opposition Members were very concerned about what was happening and about the total lack of response from the Government. They should have been there to assist us with our representations. When the Home Secretary reads the record of events in the morning, he will no doubt regret what I think he said to me.
The order will be debated, and presumably carried tonight. If the Government find, on mature reflection, that


there is any validity in our points—which we made as best we could, and without the panopoly of the law, which is there to assist the Government—he will have opportunity to consult. I did not seek to make any bogus point, as the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) implied. A Parliamentary Private Secretary to a Minister at the Welsh Office does not usually speak, but I can only assume that he was speaking on behalf of the Welsh Office. I am sure that it is a matter of regret that he also used the word "bogus" about a point that I made to the best of my ability.
If, on mature reflection, there is any matter that causes concern to the Home Office, the Home Secretary will have an opportunity to consult. I ask him to consider what has been said carefully. After all, he is the custodian of law and order and he must ensure that right is done. If, contrary to our expectations, it is found that there was no fault in the preparation of the order, and that there was no need for an accompanying statement, so be it. The Home Office has an opportunity to examine what has been said, and to have discussions with the Attorney-General. Sometimes Departments do not sufficiently use the Law Officers' Office. I wonder whether the Home Office has consulted the Attorney-General at all.
I hope that the Secretary of State will give us an assurance that if, on mature reflection, he decides that a point is valid, he will consult with the Law Officers before the matter is introduced in the other place. That is the minimum that we can ask, and I hope that it will engender a positive response. We have had assurances from the Minister that article (2)(i) of the Neath (Communities) Order does not apply on 1 January. When that is coupled with regulation 4(1) (a) of the Local Government Area Changes Regulations 1976 and the type of returning officer who should be appointed, it gives rise to concern. I do not seek to make a bogus point. I hope that the Government will confirm that the Attorney-General will be consulted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) raised a point about the spelling of Peterston-super-Ely. That place is familiar to all hon. Members from South Wales. It is not spelt "Peterson". Whether or not there is any validity in my hon. Friend's point about a modification, I can assure the Secretary of State that it is not spelt "Peterson". It has never been Peterson. The name goes back to Norman times. It is Peterston-super-Ely—Peter abound the river Ely. Peterson refers to nothing. I ask for an assurance on that point, and ask that the Attorney-General be consulted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) placed an amendment on the Order Paper. I added my name to his amendment. Given the nature of our proceedings, it cannot be either debated or voted upon. Obviously, I can refer to it in my speech. I cannot anticipate what speech my hon. Friend might have made had he remained in the Chamber. He has very real concern, on behalf of his constituents, that the wrong decision was taken in dividing that constituency from east to west rather than from north to south. I was not present at the hearing, but I made my representations in writing to the assistant commissioner. A whole host—the overwhelming majority—of the representations were to that effect.
I hope that the House will understand why my hon. Friend feels so passionately about the matter. Had he been

here, he would have made that point with much greater force than I. The feeling remains in the area that a mistake has been made.
I suggest that the Minister goes away—despite his refusal to support the move to adjourn the House—and considers the points made and, in due course, give the assurance that Parliament has not had tonight.

Mr. Tom Ellis: I shall make only a brief contribution to the debate, and comment on one or two points made by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) and the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer).
I cannot help saying that our behaviour this evening has been a poor advertisement for Members of Parliament. Many people cannot help suspecting that the real trouble with the report is that the cookie has crumbled the wrong way. If it had crumbled the other way, it might have been more readily accepted by the Opposition. That is probably so shallow as to be obvious.
The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon said that the one and a half hours allocated to the debate were not sufficient. A debate on the report, talking about individual wards, should not take place in the Chamber in the first instance. Each Welsh Member—the same will apply when the English proposals are debated—has a direct, personal vested interest. It would have been better to have considered the whole process whereby the Boundary Commission was asked to perform the impossible—that being to introduce a system of representation. That simply cannot be done under the present system. I can cite any number of instances where representation does not take place, and cannot do so, under our system.
For example, any person living in Tonypandy who wishes to vote Conservative knows before he does so that he is wasting his vote. Similarly, any member of the Labour party who happens to live in Colwyn bay will also waste his vote when contributing to the election of a Member of Parliament. He may make a demonstration, but he is wasting his vote. We will not have a Conservative Member in the Rhondda valley for a long time, and I suspect that we will not have a Labour Member in Colwyn Bay. There are many other examples.
The other example of an individual not having the right to representation is that twice since the war, a party that has had fewer votes than the other party has formed the Government. That is saying that the voter is irrelevant and one can do without the voter or even the election. That is an obvious point that wants making.
The right hon. Member for Rhondda spoke about the incompetence—or words to that effect—of the commission. He used harsh words, and I am sure that when he goes home tonight, he will—

Mr. John Silkin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will agree that this is a matter for your discretion—I think that you said so earlier—and I hope that you will use it. There has been insufficient time for debate this evening, and I therefore hope that you will accept a motion to adjourn the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We must continue until 12.36 when I shall make a statement to the House under Standing Order No. 3.

Mr. Ellis: I shall be brief. The right hon. Member for Rhondda spoke about the need to have natural communities and criticised the commission for failing to couple Abefan and Methyr Tydfil, and so on. It is clear that to be an hon. Member for Cardiff, North, or Cardiff North-West or South, is not to be in a natural boundary—

It being one and a half hours afer the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER. being of opinion that because of the importance of the subject matter of the motion the time for debate had not been adequate, interrupted the business, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business), and the debate stood adjourned till this day.

Seal Products (Community Imports)

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10390/82 of 25th October 1982 concerning a Proposal for a Council Regulation on common rules prohibiting the import of skins of certain seal pups and products derived therefrom into the Community; and supports the action taken to meet public concern through effective national measures against the import of the products concerned, pending any decision about action at Community level following further investigation of all aspects of the cull.
I welcome this opportunity to discuss the Community document that has been circulated, relating to the meeting of the Council of Ministers on 17 December in Brussels. The debate in Brussels will continue at the end of this month, and I am sure that the views of hon. Members will make a useful contribution to our deliberations, which is why I welcome the timing of the debate, even though the hour is rather later than might have been expected.
It will be for the convenience of the House if I first remind hon. Members of the history of the Commission's proposals for a regulation to ban the import of certain harp and hooded seal pup products into the Community. The killing of these pups, mainly off the coasts of Canada and Norway, has in recent years led to considerable public outcry, not just in this country, but in most of the nations in the Community.
For the benefit of non-biologists, which may exclude the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who I think is a scientist, I should explain that the harp seal pups, otherwise known as whitecoats, are the attractive fluffy white creatures that have received most publicity, while the hooded seal pups, known as bluebacks, are killed in much smaller numbers in the same areas. In a wide-ranging resolution on seals last March, the European Parliament urged that the Community should stop importing these products, and thus put pressure on the Canadians and Norwegians to end the annual cull. The Commission consequently proposed to the Council of Ministers the draft regulation which is before the House this evening.
As I have already reported to the House, I led the United Kingdom delegation at two meetings of the environment council in December when this proposal and possible alternatives were discussed at great length. I should like to expand on my earlier reports now by highlighting some of the issues which were considered.
The immediate obstacle to acceptance of the Commission's proposals as drafted as objection to the use of article 113 of the Treaty of Rome in this way. The article, as I am sure hon. Members will know, is concerned with the Community's common commercial policy, and it has been argued that action under that article must be justified on commercial grounds and no other. Both the Council's legal advisers in Brussels and the legal advisers of several member states, including the Attorney-General, advised that this article could simply not serve as a legal basis for the regulation as drafted. That was because it was based upon moral grounds and not commercial grounds.
The council considered whether there were alternative bases for action, in particular a proposal put forward by the Danish Presidency for a directive under article 100 of the treaty. This article is intended to be used to liberalise


trade by harmonising national measures which are distorting the functioning of the Common Market. Given that there were few national measures in force, with very limited effect, and that the proposed directive would clearly restrain and not liberalise trade, there were obvious difficulties in the use of that article as well. Further, the draft proposal before the Council was, like the article 113 proposal, based explicitly on moral rather than purely commercial grounds, and so we and some other member states saw it as trespassing on the perogatives of national Governments.
This brings me to a fundamental point on which I should particularly welcome the views of the House: that is, the extent to which it considers Community—as opposed to national—action on such matters to be desirable. Acceptance of either of the draft proposals before the Council would have given the Community some competence for action in the trade field on moral or ethical grounds, and there would have been a corresponding diminution of national powers. The Government thought that this House, and the country as a whole, would not wish its freedom of action to be constrained in such a sensitive and subjective area, by the consensus views of other member states, on proposals inspired by our European counterparts in Strasbourg.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He may be coming to the point that I want to make. We now have a resolution and we may well have a regulation. If we have a regulation, it will be based on the same pretext as the resolution—in other words, a moral basis rather than a trading basis. If that were to happen, would we not be faced in this country with a fait accompli whereby we would have to accept the regulation on that basis?

Mr. Shaw: That would depend on whether the regulation that came before the Council achieved the unanimity required to make it an effective Community instrument and whether it was based on the identical grounds of the regulation that was originally drafted and presented by the Commission to the Council in early December. The regulation that is now before us will be on the agenda at the next meeting of the Council on 28 February. The matters raised by my hon. Friend are germane and I am grateful for his comments.
The competence of the Community is of course already established in certain areas of conservation, a subject which is of particular concern to me and my fellow Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane). Reports last year from both the Nature Conservancy Council and the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas drew attention to the very uncertain status of the hooded seal and I suggested to the Council that the Commission should explore further the justification for a regulation under article 235 of the treaty on conservation grounds. That is the article under which the conservation regulation on whales was taken some years ago. I must tell the House that unfortunately that suggestion found no support.
Apart from the difficulties of finding an appropriate legal basis, member states had some doubts about the principle of Community action on moral grounds. For example, the cull has been condemned too because seal skins are used primarily for luxury items, such as fur coats

and apres ski boots. The trade is, however, certainly not a luxury for the several thousands of fishermen in isolated communities in Norway and Canada. They are dependent on the cull for income during the harsh winter months when fishing, which is their main activity, is impossible, and it provides the funds to purchase new equipment for the fishing season. In recent years, about 9,000 fishermen in Canada have been licensed to take seals and sealing has provided one third of the income of many fishermen in Newfoundland. Loss of this income may cause extreme hardship—a point strongly represented to us by the Canadian Government and the premier of Newfoundland and his colleagues.

Mr. David Ennals: What is the relevance of the point that the hon. Gentleman is making? The regulation is concerned with stopping the importation of pelts and the products of pelts into certain countries. At the moment, the Minister is talking about what may be done by the native peoples of Canada for an entirely different purpose. Surely they will not be covered by the regulation that will be put before the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Shaw: The right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) is quite right, in that the regulation does not have a direct effect on any Canadian person or people. It requires the Community to take action on a certain basis under a certain article. I shall answer what is in the right hon. Gentleman's mind more directly later in my speech.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that the Canadian Government and some of the states in Canada have been making strong representations about the impact that this has on fishermen? Does he agree that they are a small number of people and that it would be easy for a country that is as rich as Canada and, by all accounts, Norway, to compensate those fishermen if they were unable to continue with that activity?

Mr. Shaw: I must have considerable sympathy with the view that the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) has expressed. It is clearly a small community that is part of a large country. Nevertheless, it is only fair to tell the House that the representations were made in the form that I have described.
Seals are an important seasonal food supplement for many Canadian fishermen. However, there is a more important link between sealing and food supplies. As the House will know, it is that seals consume large quantities of fish. The Canadian and Norwegian Governments have made it clear that they would have to ensure that sealing continued to protect fish stocks, even if there were no market for seal products of the type that are dealt with in the regulation. Such a cull would be likely to concentrate on breeding females. That would have most effect on numbers. It would not concentrate on the young, which have aroused the greatest concern of members of the public.
It is not only the Canadians who are interested in fish stocks in Canadian waters; European fishermen have an interest that must also be considered. That brings me to another issue that I wish to stress—the need to influence Canada and Norway, as the culls take place within their jurisdiction, not the Community's. Merely imposing import bans would not necessarily limit the culls. Canada proposed to the Council that it should establish with the


Community and Norway a preparatory commission to investigate the ethical and economic aspects of the cull and to draft an international sealing convention for Atlantic seals, on the lines of the Internationl Whaling Convention. In the Government's view, it would have been foolish to ignore those proposals, which might have a greater long-term effect on sealing than import restrictions ever could, and ensure that sealing is undertaken on a sound scientific basis.
There were, in December, many aspects of the cull which required further examination. There were also legal objections to Community action on the basis proposed. The Government, however, like the Governments of other member states, wished to respond positively to demands for an end to imports, while doubts remained about the humanity and consequences of the cull. Hence the form of the resolution adopted unanimously by all member states which involves preventing imports through national measures, pending a decision about action at the Community level. This Community-wide action will close completely the main market for these products, as the European Community has hitherto accounted for over 90 per cent. of the trade. It has clearly been effective. In Norway, the Seal Hunting Council has recommended a complete halt to hunting seal pups this season and it has recommended that the number of vessels participating in sealing should be reduced from 10 to seven.
I can also inform the House that the major fur traders in Canada have also stated that they do not propose to purchase any seal pup skins in the spring. It is fair to say that this means that closing the main market, as a result of the Community's action in December, has put pressure on the Canadian Government to such an extent that the prospects of continuing with a traditionally sized seal cull must now be severely reduced. I sincerely hope that hon. Members will recognise that the action that has been taken so far has led in the two nations most directly involved to changes in their traditional views of the matter.
The United Kingdom has in the past acted as the major entrepot for skins from Canada destined for other European countries. In view of the public concern about sealing, the British Fur Trade Association has undertaken not to import any seal pup products resulting from this year's cull. Hon. Members will I know be pleased at this responsible action taken by the Association. Those voluntary measures will be monitored by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, which is establishing three new tariff headings to enable any importation of harp or hooded seal material to be clearly identified if it is properly declared. In addition, customs officers will be scrutinising a proportion of the importations declared under closely allied headings to check that they are not being used, either deliberately or inadvertently, to mask harp and hooded seal material.
I remind the House that the Government had already responded to public concern about sealing, by ensuring that people could identify—and avoid if they wished—the products derived from it. Hence, since the beginning of 1981, all sealskin goods have had to be clearly marked as such, showing the country in which the seals were taken. No other EC country has a marking regime. This measure remains in force, and indeed the European Parliament recommended that this practice should be extended throughout the Community. The Government would, of course, be prepared to support any such proposal by the Commission.
As well as preventing imports, the December resolution requested the European Commission to undertake a comprehensive examination of the cull and to explore the Canadian proposals with the countries concerned. We have just received the Commission's preliminary report of those investigations, which will provide the basis for the Council's review of the issues on 28 February. At first sight the Commission's report—perhaps understandably in view of the timescale—adds nothing significant to the information available to the Council in December, and the Commission makes it plain that it still backs the draft regulation under article 113, which was considered then.
I remind the House that, while we shall be taking a close look at what the Commission proposes, the machinations through which the Council went in its previous discussions make it extremely difficult to proceed on the basis of article 113 or 100. However, what the Government would look for and would press their colleagues on the Council to find is a satisfactory solution that avoids those complex legal problems. The Government wish to respond to the views not only that have been pressed on them by the public at large but that have been expressed by great numbers of hon. Members, that a way must be found to try to secure the prevention of the importation of pup products.
The House should take considerable comfort from the fact that in the action so far taken a fundamental change has occurred—90 per cent. or more of the cull has been prevented from reaching its markets, one Government have announced a suspension of the cull—the Norwegians—and the second Government are under great pressure from their fur trade association to review, and I hope reduce substantially, the traditional cull of seal pups.

Dr. David Clark: I am very disappointed with the Minister's speech.

Mr. Marlow: Why?

Dr. Clark: I shall explain why in a moment. If the hon. Gentleman had followed the issue over the years as closely as some of us, he would understand why.
I have a stack of press comments suggesting that the Government are selling out completely to the commercial lobby.

Mr. Marlow: Nonsense.

Dr. Clark: Let me try to explain. We have in front of us not a regulation, but a take-note motion that is cleverly worded. It says two things; first, that we take note of the European Community document and, secondly, that we support any action
to meet public concern through effective national measures … pending any decision about action at Community level.
It seems that that motion is satisfactory to most people in this country. I am sure that hon. Members have received much correspondence on the issue. Over 300 Members, a record number, signed an early-day motion on it last Session, calling on the Government to prohibit this scandalous trade.
Let us be quite clear about what we are discussing. I do not think that the Minister, in his haste to get as much as possible into as short a time as possible, made this quite clear to the House. We are discussing prohibition of the import of the skins of two specific seals—the harp and the hooded seal—and we are talking not about adult seals but about pups. I emphasise that.
The EC has a great responsibility in this, as it is responsible for 70 per cent. or more of the market for the product in question. Prohibition is needed now, on grounds of cruelty and on grounds of conservation. I am not so stupid as to think that there is no need to cull animals, including seals in certain cases. I recognise that there are good grounds for culling grey seals in certain parts of this country. I am not naive in these matters. Nevertheless, the way in which the pups that we are discussing are culled and the conservation issue demand that we consider the matter far more seriously than the Government seem prepared to do.
It is, of course, an emotive subject. We have all seen the horrific television films of the brutal clubbing of what look like very pretty mammals. They are white, fluffy and cuddly, with big eyes, and when one sees their blood contrasted with the white snow as their mothers look pathetically on. One's heart is naturally moved. Not only are people's hearts moved, however, I am sure that there is cruelty involved.
As a nation and as a Community we must respond to public opinion. No Member here can deny that public opinion is against this trade. A petition was signed by nearly 5 million people and early-day motions were signed by more than 300 Members of the House. Extremely responsible bodies have organised campaigns to put across not propaganda but the truth about this issue. There is the Seal Protection Group, composed of the RSPCA, the World Society for the Protection of Animals, the World Wildlife Fund and many others. They are not fly-by-night organisations but highly reputable bodies in the conservation world.
The Government are trying to have their cake and eat it as well. We get plenty of tears and sympathy from them, but they must be crocodile tears, because there is no action.
The Minister seems to dismiss the conservation issue. He referred in passing to the Nature Conservancy Council. That body is funded by the Government and has an immense international reputation. In its evidence to the Commission it said:
In the NW Atlantic management has halted the previous dramatic decline to less than half the unexploited size.
There has been some improvement, but that is only in relation to the harp seal. The situation is still dangerous, but it is certainly not critical. Referring to the hooded seal or blue-back, however, the council says:
The position of the hooded seal is in every respect more serious. On the available evidence management measures appear to have only reduced the rate of decline rather than halted it.
In considering conservation measures, we have a responsibility to proceed very cautiously, to err on the side of the animals and to make the most positive assumptions when reaching decisions affecting conservation measures. I could cite many other examples, but I will stay with the British Nature Conservancy Council as its reputation and international standing are such that I am willing to accept its findings. We should take those findings as seriously as we can.
I have heard a great deal talked about how this will affect the Greenlanders and the Eskimos, but it has been made plain that we are trying to exclude aboriginal hunting. The Greenlanders and the Inuit Eskimos are generally not as barbaric as we civilised people, who club young seals to death. It means more to them to hunt the

adult mammal so that they can obtain food and the skin for their own use. That makes sense and it is a sad commentary on civilisation that it is the supposed civilised element of society that goes around clubbing the baby seals to death. We can exclude that aspect.
We hear that it will upset economics; and the Minister has played on that. There is plainly a problem. The Minister says that it is a small problem, but I concede that it is 100 per cent. important to the people involved. Basically it affects two countries only. The Norwegians traditionally have 30 per cent. of the killing. Their Government are not of my disposition. It is the Hoyre Government, who are similar to that of the Minister, but they have responded to public opinion. They are not arrogant like this Government. They do not block their ears. They have no election coming. They have something to lose economically, whereas we have nothing to lose. They have said that this year there will be no pup cull, which is to be welcomed. I take my hat off to the Hoyre Government in Norway. They are prepared to make an economic sacrifice because they believe that it is morally right so to do. They do not shilly-shally as the Government do.

Mr. Giles Shaw: The hon. Gentleman has suggested on four occasions that the Government have done nothing. I must refute that in the strongest possible terms. The Government have put in place a national ban by virtue of the arrangement made with the Association of Fur Traders which has effectively prevented something like 90 per cent. of the import of seal products through us into the Community. The hon. Gentleman is right off the beam.

Dr. Clark: The Minister says that there is a national ban. If there is, why is it not made law? There is a voluntary ban which has no legal backing. The Government are depending on the good will of the importers and traders. The Minister can do nothing to stop anyone importing seal pup products. There is no ban; there is a voluntary agreement. I shall return to that point later.
The Norwegians have acted in an honourable way. The Canadians have problems, but if one looks at all the sea take of Canada, which is a rich country, 1·4 per cent. only is in the form of seals or other sea mammals. It compares with 3·8 per cent. for seaweed. It is chicken feed and affects only those small communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) said, surely a country as large as Canada can do something to offset and mitigate the problems.
The Minister has skated over what is happening in the EC. He has not been as forthcoming as I should have liked.He did not tell us much about the Commission's meeting yesterday. Has he had no reports about the meeting? I understand that the Commission studied this subject in great detail and came to the conclusion that the conversations that it has had with the Canadians and Norwegians have introduced no new elements and have done nothing to dissipate the doubts in the public's mind. The Commission agrees that the scientific evidence must be collected and it is willing to do everything that it possibly can in that respect, but it believes that the ideas put forward by the Canadians, particularly, for a convention to look into the problems of baby seals will mean more and more procrastination. That does not cut much ice with the Commission and I believe that it will not recommend the Council, which meets in a couple of weeks, to take any such decision.
But what the Minister did not tell the House, and I believe that he should have done so, is what the European Commission recommended at its meeting yesterday. I shall tell the House if the Minister is not prepared to do so. It recommended taking into account the observations about which I talked, and states:
The Commission is led to the conclusion that it should maintain as it stands the proposal transmitted to the Council on 19 October 1982.
It is saying that the original ban and the regulation that it proposed on 19 October should be carried out. I go along with that, and I should have thought that the majority of the House would go along with it. The early-day motions last year attracted 304 and 272 signatures. The opinion is backed up not only in Britain but in Europe.
The Minister told us today that he is not prepared to support that resolution at the Council of Ministers on 28 February. I may have misunderstood him, but that was my understanding of his speech. That will cause deep disappointment, not only to me and to many will cause deep disappointment, not only to me and to many Conservative Members but to people throughout the Community. We have no friends. The Germans were our allies, but perhaps the Minister has not realised that there will soon he an election in Germany. That country has "green politics" and many politicians are becoming worried. Herr Vogel is catching up with Herr Kohl, and Herr Genscher has now changed his mind and said that the German presidency of the EC Council would press for an immediate import ban. The British Government are now in isolation and have lost all their friends. I do not understand why the Minister is prepared to take such a dog-in-the-manger attitude. It is very strange.
I could understand the Government's attitude if they had a strong economic case or a great deal to lose, or if they believed that there was a moral reason for resisting the regulation, but none of those grounds apply. The Labour party does not accept the Minister's view that there is doubt about the legality of article 113. The Commission does not believe that there is doubt, nor do the other EC countries. The Germans are calling for an immediate import ban. The Prime Minister has assured the RSPCA and other bodies that she is concerned about those poor little mammals, but at the end of the day she is prepared to do nothing. It is sad that the British Government should be the only Government in Europe to hold up the regulation. It will cause great disappointment to millions of British people. It is a pity that the debate is taking place at this time of night— [Interruption] Hon. Members may scoff about that. Perhaps Conservative Members do not worry about how the British people feel. However, I do not believe that that is true, because the 300 hon. Members who signed those early-day motions will stand by them. We have had animal welfare debates in the House before. I have stood at this Dispatch Box and I have seen the Government defeated on animal welfare because there were always sufficient Conservative Members who, when it came down to it, were prepared to give their Government a bloody nose if they believed that they deserved it. I am disappointed that this time we shall not have more pressure on the Government to change their mind.
I hope that the Minister will not put the Government out on a limb. The Germans have gone along with the regulation, and we should do the same. I plead with the

Minister to stop this barbaric trade and to ensure that we support the Commission's recommendation when it comes before the Council on 28 February.

Mr. Jim Spicer: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State knows that my interest in this matter goes back a long way; indeed, to when it was first raised in the European Parliament by my good friend Mr. Stanley Johnson, a Conservative and a Member of the European Democratic Group. But we moved on from there and had the full-hearted support of the Parliament in taking the matter to the Commission, whose subsequent actions speak for themselves.
Mr. Johnson's motion called for an EC import ban on products coming from young harp and hooded seals, or from seals whose stocks were depleted, threatened or endangered. It was the starting point for one of the most enormous upsurges of public feeling, especially in Britain. Three million people—we have heard that it was nearer 5 million, which may be right—in Europe signed a petition. I, and certainly many other hon. Members, had our fair share of the 60,000 letters that came in from our constituents. The early-day motion that was supported by more than 300 hon. Members has already been mentioned.
What happened thereafter has already been referred to in the debate. The Commission responded by calling upon its scientific advisers to make a report. Subsequently, the Commission prepared and transmitted to the Council on 17 October last year a proposal for a Council regulation, which is the subject of our debate.
The Council, meeting at the level of Environment Ministers, has twice considered the Commission's proposals but has not yet given its final approval. I had hoped that one result of the debate tonight would be that the United Kingdom Government would find themselves, with full parliamentary support, able to come out in favour of that regulation. The Commission's proposal is in its view—I say "in its view" because I do not put to one side the views of the Attorney-General as lightly as the Opposition seem to do—based firmly in Community law. It has taken the view that it cannot be right for different countries within the Community to have different standards for the importation of seal products. An import ban is an import ban and cannot operate sensibly on a voluntary basis.
My hon. Friend talked about articles 113 and 235 and the difficulty of taking action on a Community basis. If that cannot be done, can action be taken on a national basis? What national action can be taken? I take the point made by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Clark), that a voluntary ban in these circumstances is not good enough.
Other member countries have already taken the step of imposing a total ban within their own countries. If we do not go to the next meeting and support the Commission's proposals, I cannot see why we cannot go along and say "All right, but we will impose a national ban instead." As was said by the Minister, the terms of the Commission's proposals were:
The member states pending any decision about action at Community level will take all necessary and possible measures within the limits of national competence to prevent the importation into their territory of products of young harp and hooded seals.
If we are unable to agree with that, and if we are to stand fast and say that articles 113 and 235 do not apply,


can we not take upon ourselves the national responsibility of turning that voluntary ban, which is a temporary measure, into a full blooded ban, which everybody in the House would support?
The point has been made that the West Germans are not backsliding any more. Many other community states have already taken action. If we take similar action, we shall effectively ban the importation of baby seal products into the Community. We are the people most closely identified with this importation. If we were not importing, the entire trade would collapse.
There are other hon. Members who wish to speak and I therefore move on quickly to add one further point, which came to my notice the other day. Recently, a delegation of seal hunters from Greenland spoke of the adverse effect that the public discussion of the Canadian seal hunt had had on their lives. Those Greenlanders are taking adult seals from non-endangered species. There is a world of difference in that, and that is what culling is all about. One does not go up into the Highlands and cull deer at birth. One takes ones cull from the upper end of the age bracket. That can be done on a massive scale, if need be, when dealing with seals, particularly if a fishing industry is suffering.
Those Greenlanders said that they were not killing baby seals or threatening seal populations. Because of the present uncertainty, they are finding that their markets are being threatened. An EC regulation or directive which is clearly defined, as in the Commission's proposal, would remove that uncertainty and enable the legitimate activities of Arctic and Greenlander populations to continue unimpeded.
The Government have much to be proud of in terms of environmental policies, both within the Community and outside it. Some mention was made of our position on whaling. It was the clear lead from our Government that led the way to the ban on the importation of whale products. That ban was based not only on conservation grounds but on humanitarian grounds. In particular, the Government and most people in the country were rightly concerned about the methods of hunting, especially the use of the cold harpoon.
I appeal to my hon. Friend, in advance of the meeting on 28 February, to review the Government's position with his colleagues—his colleagues in the Department of Trade most particularly. If he finds it impossible to support a Community regulation, for heaven's sake let us at least go there prepared to undertake our own positive ban on the importation of seal products.
That is what our people want. It has nothing to do with politics. It is simply that we as a nation do not like this sort of senseless killing, which is quite unnecessary and the products of which are used only in a luxury trade which we could well do without.

Mr. David Ennals: I warmly welcome the thrust of the speech of the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on the vigour with which he presented his case. I do not go along with him entirely, because the Government have done something.
Before the two meetings on 3 and 17 December, there is no doubt at all that the British Government were campaigning hard behind the scenes to persuade other members of the Ten not to take action, as was recommended by the Commission. I believe that they gave in to the pressure of public opinion.
I am sad that, even now, the Minister underestimates the depth of feeling that exists about the massive cruelty which the Canadian cull has caused over the years. I sometimes find it sad that people in Britain seem to be more concerned about cruelty to animals than about cruelty to human beings, but I associate myself with the depth of feeling about cruelty to defenceless creatures.
I can scarcely remember an issue on which the public has expressed itself so explicitly, emotionally and strongly. All hon. Members have received a massive mail bag on the subject. In addition, we have now had three all-party early-day motions that have been signed by more than 300 hon. Members. It is not a party issue in any sense at all.
The Government decision to persuade the British Fur Trade Association to enter a voluntary agreement was a worthwhile but temporary step. A temporary and voluntary agreement cannot be satisfactory. It means that we constantly have to return to the House with all the uncertainty that this causes in Greenland and Canada about where we stand. How will the Government monitor the extent to which the fur traders operate the voluntary agreement? What happens in the case of fur traders who are not affiliated to the association? I myself might return from Canada with two large suitcases containing pelts. It must be realised that there are grave difficulties involved in operating a voluntary agreement.
This is recognised by the Commission. The resolution passed on 17 December was a temporary arrangement pending the studies that the Commission was required to make before reporting back to the Ministers for a final decision. The moment of decision on 28 February is rapidly approaching. I do not think that the Minister did actually say—I am glad that he did not—that he was committing himself to vote against the regulation when it comes before Ministers on 28 February. If he did, I ask him to intervene to make it clear. I hope that he will not intervene because it is the purpose of Opposition Members and of the public to persuade him.
The Minister must consider seriously the conclusions reached by the Commission. It considered that recent conversations with the Canadian Government had not introduced elements that would enable the doubts expressed by public opinion on a much wider scale than in Britain alone on the baby seal hunt to be dissipated.
The Commission underlined the point that
the reinforcement of scientific work, and of measures leading to an improved management of the stocks … are not such as to deal with the problems which are the object of the preoccupations expressed by public opinion. The Commission considers that measures tending to reduce substantially the baby seal hunt will also contribute to improving the conservation status of the species concerned.
It was concerned with conservation as well as the humanitarian aspects of cruelty. The conclusion was:
The Commission is of the view that these measures"—
the voluntary measures—
are very disparate and their comparative evaluation is for this reason very difficult. The maintenance of the present situation risks provoking distortions and discriminations".
which means, I suppose, that some countries will carry them out more effectively than others.
and that the compatibility of the national measures with the rules of the Treaty is far from being assured.
This is a reference to articles 30 and 85.
The Commission added:
This unclear situation cannot overcome the uncertainties bearing upon the fur trade as a whole which have led it to come down in favour of a clear ban. Taking account of the above ob servations"—
I have not read all of them—
the Commission is led to the conclusion that it should maintain as it stands the proposal transmitted to the Council on 19 October 1982.
The commission is clear about it. It has fulfilled the mandate placed upon it by the decision of Ministers in December. Now we come to the final moment of decision. Some people thought that when the Ministers had their meeting and a voluntary ban was agreed, it was all over. All of a sudden there were no more signatures on the early-day motion and the postbag dried up. Everyone thought that everything had been resolved. We now know that it has not been resolved, but we are determined that it will be. The German Government, who had been one of the sticking points in getting the regulations through, have completely changed their point of view. What would the reaction be if the British Government were the only Government who would block a ban for all time on the admission of these two types of baby seals, harp and hooded seals? The Government would come under great criticism if it were thought that they were standing in the way of general agreement. The Minister would not have heard the end of it.
I hope that we continue to act across the Chamber in the spirit that we have done tonight. If the British Government were to be the Government who prevented the ending of the importation into the Commission countries of baby seal pelts and products it would become a sharp issue. I would want to see a vote against the Government on that. I would campaign in the country against the Government. I do not want to do that.
This is a non-party matter and the all-party nature of the early-day motion can be preserved only if the Government go along with the other members of the Community on 28 February in support of a mandatory ban for all time so that everyone knows the position. I hope that the Minister has not ruled that out, and that he will agree with the other Ministers. If not, public opinion will be harshly against a Government who are so pusillanimous as to stand in the way of a general ban.

Sir Dudley Smith: Hon. Members have been rather less than generous to my hon. Friend about the explanation he gave at the outset. I am satisfied with what he said and with the terms of the motion. The Government will go along with the Community in due course. He was right to make the point, as I understood it, that we must always be masters of our own fate. On moral and commercial issues we must reserve the right to take our own decisions, however emotional the subject may be.
We are a member of the European Community, as we should be, although there is controversy about that. To a certain extent we have to go along with many diktats of the EC, but in other cases we must exercise our own judgment, even if at the end of the day we agree with the decision of the EC. My hon. Friend was right to make that point.
I declare an honorary interest in the issue under debate. I am chairman of the United Kingdom branch of the Wilderness Foundation, which is dedicated throughout the world to the preservation of the wilderness and to the preservation and conservation of wild life. There are large numbers of animals under attack. They do not all get the same exposure as seals because, as has already been said, seals are peculiarly attractive animals. When the subject is given television and press coverage, emotions are aroused immediately and we get an avalanche of correspondence. One thing which the Wilderness Foundation did successfully was to preserve the white rhino in Africa. Today, far from being in danger of extinction, it is flourishing. No one would say that compared with the seal it was a cuddly, nice animal. Therefore, we must retain a sense of proportion when talking about any species of wildlife. However, I agree that much has been wrong. It is no good others saying that the livelihoods of Norwegian and Canadian fishermen will be at stake if they are not permitted to go ahead with the cull, or to get the pelts and skins for manufacturing luxury goods. One could argue in favour of all sorts of dubious activities on the basis that to stop them would lead to unemployment. The countries concerned, particularly Canada, should consider other ways of sustaining those who would be materially affected if large-scale culling were stopped.
There is no doubt that the culling that we have seer and heard about is very distasteful to the public. It cannot be sustained by Britain or other European countries, because it involves, almost exclusively, luxury goods that are imported into Europe. Different criteria would apply if it were a question of food or essentials. However, there can be no defence in this case. No one in his right mind would pretend that the slaughter of seals was unnecessary, but it should be necessary only when there is a severe threat to fishstocks or when the balance of nature is being affected. That applies to all sorts of wild animals. If we bear that point in mind, we shall be on the right lines.
I defend the attitude of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. We must use our own judgment. The Government have not been hesitant about sticking up for animal interests. Although they may not be affected by the more hysterical elements of the animal lobby, they take account of the moral dilemma facing us. From what my hon. Friend has said, I believe that we are on the right lines. However, we must be in a position to exercise our own judgment. I should be very surprised if we did not support the final decision in respect of the Community. Like the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), I shall bring to bear whatever slight influence I may have on the Government so that they take the right decision.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I shall try to be brief. I hope that the House will be able to give the Minister a more or less unanimous message to take with him to the EC. The people of Britain want a permanent enforceable ban as soon as possible. I am sure that most of my constituents find the killing of baby harp and hooded seals barbaric, and they want it stopped very quickly. They want it to be stopped because of the cruelty, and because of the whole argument about conservation. They fully


accept that some form of culling may be necessary should the seal population become too great. However, they believe that baby seals do not need to be attacked.
My constituents are correct to believe that there is no overpopulation of either of those species, and no justification for killing any of them. My constituents also accept that, if livelihoods are put at risk, there must be some compensation. However, since the two countries involved are relatively rich, my constituents rightly believe that Norway and Canada can provide that compensation without causing any hardship. My constituents believe that that should happen. They do not want to take away anyone's livelihood.
There is a tendency for my constituents, and many others, to be concerned about conservation of species elsewhere in the world—perhaps more glamorous species—and to forget that there are many less glamorous species at risk in Britain. We must be careful that we do not become hypocritical and insist that the Canadians and Norwegians do something while we are prepared to allow species of dragonfly, butterfly or other small creatures to become extinct because we are not prepared to take conservation measures. It is important that, when pressing other people to do things, we are prepared to do them ourselves.
The essential point is that we do not want voluntary and temporary measures. They mean that we must continue to campaign because there is slow erosion of those powers. My constituents want the clubbing of baby seals to be stopped for ever as a result of permanent, effective, enforceable legislation.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I accept the opinion of the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), and the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer), that what we are discussing tonight probably stems from the great upsurge of anger and anxiety about the inhumane killing of baby seals. Undoubtedly it is a wider issue and is not concerned only with seals. There is growing public concern about the appalling and inhumane practices in factory farming and some of the practices nearer home, such as the clubbing of young foxes. That is another intolerable activity. I hope that the Government will respond to what is undoubtedly an upsurge of concern.
My only fear is that there appears to be a great deal of concern about whales and seals, which are far away and largely outwith our control—other than the importing aspect—and not so much concern about things nearer to hand and well within our control. All parties will have to take account of that.
We should concern ourselves with how we can best take action. My fear is that if we adopt the policy suggested by the Opposition and my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West, it might be a means of washing our hands of the position. I wonder whether it would have as much possibility of succeeding in eliminating the practice of clubbing baby seals as the course of action proposed by the Minister. Most of the seals come into Western Europe, and to impose an immediate ban would have a dramatic effect on the market. But for how long would that last? Other markets could well be found, perhaps in the Far East, and

we could find ourselves able to absolve our consciences while not having had an impact on stopping the clubbing of baby seals.
What my hon. Friend the Minister said showed the course of action that he put forward as basically designed to obtain a change in attitude by the Canadian Government and others. That is a far more fruitful, helpful and constructive attitude than simply to say that Britain and Western Europe will wash their hands of the position by not purchasing any more baby seal products. We should not disregard the fact that there is always a danger of extending, far more dramatically than hon. Members might think, the scope of the Treaty of Rome by introducing legislation that would be an unusual use of article 113.
I should not oppose a ban on the importation of seal products. We are aware of public anxiety and of the need to do something. If we are genuinely concerned about the inhumane treatment of seals, we should set out sights on how we can stop the practice in Canada, and not only do something ourselves.
My hon. Friend the Minister expressed very clearly and fairly the views that I hold, and which the majority of those concerned about animals hold. If he continues with determination on the course that he has set, which is how to bring about a change of attitude and practice in Canada, he will have my wholehearted support and that of the majority of people in Britain.

Mr. David Mudd: I do not disagree with anything that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has said, and would go so far as to endorse everything that he has said, particularly his expression of the widespread concern of the civilised people in this country about the annual culling massacre of these helpless creatures that we witness on our television screens year after year. Anything that we can do to prohibit the importation, availability and sale of these products, we should do without hesitation.
However, were this resolution a once-and-for-all act, I should share the feeling of hopelessness and helplessness that has been expressed by so many hon. Members in the debate this evening. I do not see this as being a once-and-for-all move, or a final move. It is the first and very helpful step forward to securing some form of Community agreement. It should be forcefully expressed that the resolution goes on to ensure that the justification for further Community action on, for example, conservation grounds, is fully investigated, and the Canadian proposals for the international management of seals are considered thoroughly. This is a means of opening a door to even more positive Community action.
I address a personal note to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. When the matter comes before the EC, it is obvious that the Community will take action. Knowing that the Community has an obsession for harmonisation, I should like my hon. Friend to consider that the United Kingdom should be a pace setter, rather than being swept unwillingly and unwittingly to accepting what is common sense, humane, compassionate and dignified.

Mr. Giles Shaw: By leave of the House. I have valued every contribution made from both sides of the House on this issue. It is extremely helpful for me to hear the views


of hon. Members, and it is clear from the way that each hon. Member has addressed this problem that there are certain views that we can all share. The first is the view that the practice of clubbing baby seals has reached the point where hon. Members are clear that action should be taken as far as possible to see that that practice ceases. Secondly, hon. Members are anxious to see that the initiatives taken so far are fruitful in stopping the importation of products.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer), the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) were critical that the actions so far taken are insufficient to achieve that objective. I plead with hon. Members to recognise that the actions that we have taken have not yet become effective, and will not be effected by the British Fur Trade Association until 1 March. I know that hon. Members will agree that the actions proposed are designed to prevent products from the traditional culling period from finding their way to this market.
I emphasise to hon. Members that the consequence of the United Kingdom, through the fur trade association, achieving a voluntary agreement against the importation of these products has been, above all else, a major determinant of the size of the problem faced from the other side of the Atlantic. Absolute access to the market is not now available.
Without the action taken, through the fur trade association, by the United Kingdom Government, we should not he able to tell the House that some 90 per cent. of the trade in these products will not take place this year. It was as a consequence of that that there was initially the decision by the Norwegian Government to abandon culling seal pups, and latterly, and only very recently, the decision by the fur traders in Canada to react also. I accept the strictures that have been laid at my door on the Government's apparent unwillingness to go along with the immediacy of a ban as requested by the Commission to the Council. However, the actions that have been taken have shown that they are having an effect.

Dr. David Clark: I understood the Minister to say that the Government will not go along with the proposed regulation of 28 February. Am I right or wrong in that assumption?

Mr. Shaw: We have not yet decided what action we shall take on 28 February. It would be a discourtesy to the House to invite its comments on this problem if we had prejudged the issue. Action is already in place that is not based upon the regulation that was drafted by the Commission and it has already had an effect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West said, in effect, "The action taken so far is all very well, but it is only voluntary." He and others wish to see a positive statutory base for the action that is proposed. I think that the House would be well advised to allow the voluntary ban to proceed. However, if the monitoring procedure that we have introduced shows that the voluntary ban has not proved successful in preventing the importation of pup products, I agree to consult my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade, whose responsibility this is, on the possibility of taking statutory action. It is clear that we wish to see the trading in these products cease. We believe that the method that we have selected is the quickest and most effective way of doing so.
The origin of the trade, the method of the cull and the emotional problems that are so rightly worrying the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) and many others are outwith the competence of the House or the Community. They lie within the competence of the Canadian and Norwegian Governments. It is crucial that the United Kingdom should play its traditional role of being a Government who have, and wish to develop further, relations with Canada of a character that will allow us to use our good influence, I trust, in fulfilment of what hon. Members wish us to do.

Mr. Ennals: The Minister knows that I gave credit for what is, I hope, a temporary step pending a later decision. I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say that a decision has not yet been taken. If it is decided that we should have only a voluntary agreement, that will ensure that every other country has a voluntary agreement. Without Britain's support the regulation would not be approved. That would mean that the Commission's fears that different countries would operate the agreement in different ways would all be true. I do not understand why there is any doubt left in the hon. Gentleman's mind whether he should sign the regulation and go along with what I understand will be all the other countries in the Community.

Mr. Shaw: Perhaps I did not make it sufficiently clear to the right hon. Gentleman that all of these matters were discussed at two Council meetings in December. There was considerable resistance by many states to accepting the Commission's proposals. We arrived at a point where a resolution was the only effective way of taking some Community action. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, that resolution combines both a voluntary and two statutory methods. I hope that it will have some effect. It is difficult to find a legal basis upon which the Community can act on what is essentially to do with the emotional nature of the cull and the reactions to it, when the Community's legal instrumentation is entirely based on trading factors or factors that are of a measurable and commercial character.
The exception to that is article 235, the conservation article. I accepted what the hon. Member for Stockport, North said. The conservation case is one that I, on behalf of the United Kingdom, pressed most vigorously at both the Council meetings.
With regard to the hooded seal, there must be considerable doubt whether its population is of a size at which conservation should not be introduced. With regard to the harp seal, there are fairly substantial numbers of breeding stock, and there is little doubt that there is hardly a conservation case there. I assure the House that I shall do my utmost to raise the conservation issue in a way that will try to find a regulation or directive that is based on article 235.
I accept that the problem is a continuing one. We should not turn our backs on the problem on the assumption that we can sit back, even in the Council on 28 February, and believe that the matter has been dealt with. We must ensure that the trade is effectively stopped in so far as the Community members of the Community can make that happen, and ensure that our influence is brought to bear. Therefore, I believe that the offer that has been made by the Canadian Government of some commission on sealing is worth examining. I believe that


the extent of the contact that has been made so far should be increased if that is possible so that we can get more scientific evidence on the conservation case for the hooded seal.
The opinions that have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House with great clarity will be of great importance to the Government in being able to say, "This is what the United Kingdom Parliament wishes us to do." We understand and take the message. I shall do my best to ensure that we can build on the point we have reached. That is the important achievement of a voluntary ban here which will effectively prevent, if it is successful, the majority of the importation of these products.
We shall build on the fact that the Norwegian Government have stopped, and we hope to build on the fact that the Canadian Government are now under pressure to review, their culling practice, and we shall see whether there are ways forward that we can legitimately accept as a basis for Community action. The ways forward that were previously offered were very difficult and may not have had the flexibility that is essential to deal with a case which could have a significant conservation component, which we must examine most carefully and which may not be necessary if we can achieve the banning of the products by other means.
I am most grateful for the speeches that have been made from both sides of the House. I shall bear all these matters most carefully in mind.

Question put and agreed to,

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10390/82 of 25th October 1982 concerning a Proposal for a Council Regulation on common rules prohibiting the import of skins of certain seal pups and products derived therefrom into the Community; and supports the action taken to meet public concern through effective national measures against the import of the products concerned, pending any decision about action at Community level following further investigation of all aspects of the cull.

Health Provisions (Brent)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Brooke.]

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have taken an interest in health matters ever since I came to the House. During the past 12 months—the latest occasion was on Tuesday of this week—Ministers have claimed that the National Health Service has been getting more resources and funds than ever before. Every hon. Member, however, is finding that in his own patch district health authorities are under acute pressure to cut patient care and services to meet the balance sheet demands of their accountants.
Last year Brent district had a cut of £200,000 in real terms in comparison with the 1981 allocation. This year the heart-breaking task of my district health authority is to find a cut of £750,000 in real terms for 1983–84. That is in complete contrast to the figures that we get from the Dispatch Box about the increase of resources for the Health Service.
The nonsense of the Resource Allocation Working Party formula falls hard on Brent. Because the North-West Thames region is one of the big spenders, there has been a cut of another £8 million this year. The RAWP formula fails to recognise that within a region there are areas of poverty and distress where the RAWP formula should not apply.
If fully applied according to present statistics, the options open to my district health authority are to close half of its one and only district general hospital—the Central Middlesex—or to close two thirds of the Shenley psychiatric hospital, the whole of the service for geriatrics and the service for the mentally handicapped. However, it would be no good trying to meet the demands of the balance sheet by closing down the whole general practitioner service, because we would need to do that twice to meet the present amount that is required in cuts. The regional health authority figures show that of all the hospitals in the region, my district general hospital, the Central Middlesex, is one of the top third for efficiency.
The Brent health district has been in a state of perpetual siege since its inception on 1 April last year. Brent borough has 250,000 inhabitants, and 43 per cent. are from the ethnic minorities. It is a classic inner city, rundown area from the point of view of industry, housing and amenities. From prosperity 30 years ago, when it was a highly industrialised area, it has declined to a twilight industrial desert in many industrial estates because of factory closures. We have the highest unemployment in the history of the borough. The housing shortage and homelessness of 500 people mean an extra charge on the community. Serious social problems prevail. Yesterday that was recognised by the Secretary of State for the Environment when Brent was declared to be one of the areas designated for urban aid.
That does not affect the basic problem of health. My concern is about the whole health provision—hospitals, general practitioners and the community. I shall concentrate on the hospital sector. I remind the Minister that the core of my area is the district general hospital—the Central Middlesex—with 650 beds. It is the only general district acute hospital in the area. Last year there were


17,000 inpatients and 170,000 outpatients and casualties. The hospital houses the only neuro-sciences department in the region.
I remind the House of the proud history of the hospital. Sir Richard Doll was one of our consultants. Sir Francis Avery Jones is perhaps the greatest gastroenterologist in Europe. The hospital also teaches students from the Middlesex hospital. The only occupational health service in existence was pioneered by the Central Middlesex hospital. There were two 25 years ago—one at Slough and one at the Central Middlesex. However, that at the Central Middlesex is the only one that has been retained.
I bring this matter to the attention of the Minister because of the acute anxiety caused by a secret document produced by his Department and the regional health authority, which was so secret that, like most of these things nowadays, it received publicity on BBC "Nationwide" and headlines in the national press the next day.
The authority claims that it is only a background paper, but it is a soulless statistical exercise with highly selective figures, many of which are inaccurate, and completely devoid of any real understanding of the health needs of my constituency.
Last night there was a special meeting of the district health authority with the regional health authority. We sought a guarantee that there was a future for the Central Middlesex hospital. The regional authority would give no such undertaking.
I therefore ask the Minister for a categorical assurance today that the Central Middlesex hospital will be retained, with all its many sectors and disciplines, as a continuing service in my area.
Most of us accept that there is no decision for immediate closure, but the uncertainty endangers the future of the hospital because blight sets in. Posts are advertised, but consultants do not apply for them. Medical posts remain unfilled. There is a general rundown and over a period of years viability will disappear. Already, when we were about to interview for two very important operating theatre sister posts, both applicants cried off after the BBC "Nationwide" report due to the fear that there might be no future career for them. The hospital had to readvertise.
I have been through this before. In 1968, when I was on the regional health authority, there were plans to close the Willesden general hospital. That hospital had 140 beds and provided a number of surgery and other acute services. In the event, the hospital was not actually closed—I raised the matter in debates and at Question Time on many occasions over a dozen years—but the nice little label "change of site use" in the end has achieved the same purpose. What used to be a general hospital in the heart of a densely populated community now has just 38 geriatric beds, with a further 20 beds, about which I am very pleased, about to be opened for the young chronic sick.
Over a period, creeping paralysis of that kind has exactly the same effect as the decision to close a hospital. I therefore ask the Minister again to give a definite reassurance to all those who work in the Central Middlesex hospital and all those who use it that its future will he as great as its past.
The district health authority now faces the awful necessity of closing another hospital in the area—the Leamington Park hospital, which has 95 geriatric beds and

is bound to close within the next few months. The geriatrics will be sorted out to other hospitals in the area. Again, however, it means an enormous curtailment of the geriatric facilities available.
Wembley hospital, which was a district hospital with many specialties, is now being run down. To meet the savings demanded by the region, the district health authority is about to close the casualty department, trying to transfer the service to the Central Middlesex hospital on the other side of the borough and to absorb some of the geriatrics from Leamington Park.
Wembley hospital, again, is the centre of a residential community. It is esteemed and beloved by families who have usd it for generations, but it seems now to be a candidate for death by attrition.
I ask the Minister to consider two economic problems which to me are nonsense. The Central Middlesex hospital was encouraged to spend £250,000 on upgrading its laundry services on the understanding that it would be taking over the service of Northwick Park hospital, which at that time was under the same area health authority. That laundry is now being sent to a private firm in Birmingham, although I understand that that firm's tender was higher than that of the Central Middlesex hospital. That seems to go against all local government principles. There is to be a further tender in a month's time. I ask the Minister to examine this seriously so that the money invested by the National Health Service is not dissipated and the full laundry capacity at the Central Middlesex hospital is used.
The second economic problem is caused by the administrative nonsense of questioning people who might be foreign visitors to see whether they are entitled to treatment. At the Central Middlesex hospital, in the first half of October, 1,203 patients went through the stage one interview. Of those, nine needed to go to stage two, at which point a foreign student who had just arrived in the country was found to be ineligible for treatment and he went away. The other eight were all eligible, including one who would not have been eligible under the old rules. The number going to stage two was about the number that we would have expected to question more closely under the old rules. The effect of all this is that the queue of new patients has moved more slowly than it otherwise would and many patients have felt upset about being asked these questions. It seems a great deal of effort for little result. When one realises that 43 per cent. of the patients in that area are likely to come from the Caribbean, a racial problem is created at the same time.
I regret having to say that the Secretary of State and the Minister are such experts in statistics, politics and polemical debating points that they treat my health authority with contempt, as is shown by a letter written by the chairman of Brent DHA on 30 September last, to which the Secretary of State replied on 10 February—six months later—only with platitudes, in a brush-off letter.
The Ministers involved know little about ordinary people or patients, and I regret that their understanding and compassion about health and the National Health Service are woefully meagre.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) follows the example of so many of his colleagues in turning what could be a helpful debate into a foolish, political polemic. He should not pride


himself on being the only person who cares about people or patients. Despite all the figures that he trots out time and time again, he knows full well that we are spending 6 per cent. more money in real terms than when his Government were in office.

Mr. Pavitt: Not in my area.

Mr. Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman will remember well that the Chancellor he supported had to rush back from the airport because of the financial chaos caused by him and his colleagues by irresponsible and gross over spending.

Mr. Pavitt: No, quite wrong.

Mr. Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman does not like the points he has made answered. I sat listening peacefully to some of the nonsenses he trotted out. He might now listen to some of the answers that I propose to give. He has said that there are problems in his health district. I agree with him, but he knows well, as has been said by successive Health Ministers in all Governments, that resources for the National Health Service are finite, whereas demand is infinite. We have to ensure that we make available as much as the national resources will permit. That is one of the reasons why we instituted, many years after it should have been done, charges for certain overseas visitors. It will be extra income for his health district. I note that he wants to chuck it away. That type of thing should be noted carefully.
There are one or two points that the hon. Gentleman raised in a more constructive manner, and I should like to deal with them. There are clearly many misunderstandings about the resource position of the NHS as a whole, and certainly of the way in which money is allocated to health authorities—some of these contribute fairly to the feelings of concern in Brent.
Brent, as the hon. Gentleman said, is one of the larger health authorities, and its statutory responsibilities encompass the health needs of a population of about 250,000 people and the management of eight hospitals. They include two very large hospitals—Shenley with more than 1,000 beds for mentally ill patients drawn from a wide area, and the Central Middlesex hospital which provides, in theory at least, general acute hospital services for the district's population. That the Central Middlesex hospital treats almost as many people from outside the district as from within, and that more of Brent's population is treated at hospitals in other district health authorities than in Brent, are important anomalies that underline the planning problems about which I shall talk later.
Brent has significant responsibilities, and to discharge them it has an annual budget in excess of £40 million. I repeat that, to place this discussion in a national context, the NHS has never before had so high a level of resources as it has now. That is not just in money terms—the number of doctors and nurses is also higher than it has ever been. Despite the world economic recession, we have not reduced the funds allocated to the Health Service. On the contrary, total expenditure has nearly doubled from £6·5 billion in 1978–79 to nearly £12 billion in the current financial year.
However, the hon. Gentleman said that the Brent health authority faces the need to reduce its expenditure. That is

correct, although I disagree with the figures that he quoted. The regional health authority has not yet completed its sums, and Brent's allocation for the financial year 1983–84 has not yet been finally worked out. But it may well be that the quoted figures are not far off the eventual outcome and, although the scale of figures is important, we are considering the principle of why and whether a health authority's revenue allocation should be reduced.
The most important reason is the Resource Allocation Working Party. I remind the hon. Gentleman that RAWP was introduced by the Labour Government when he was still a Whip, and I do not recall him making loud protests—

Mr. Pavitt: I spoke about it.

Mr. Finsberg: I do not recall the hon. Gentleman making loud protests when he was a Whip. Perhaps he did so when he was released from those onerous responsibilities, but he cannot get away from the fact that RAWP was the creature of his Government. RAWP recognised that there were significant inequalities in the geographical distribution of NHS resources. It recommended a way of calculating health authorities' allocations, based on the population served, with adjustments designed to take account of the varying health needs of populations of equivalent size in different parts of the country. The mechanism proposed by RAWP, although no one has ever acknowledged that it was perfect, has not been seriously challenged as the most practical way—

Mr. Pavitt: In the Black report.

Mr. Finsberg: No one has ever seriously challenged it as the most practical way of changing the allocation of funds to achieve the objective that all of us wish of having the same figures overall.

Mr. Pavitt: Read the Black report.

Mr. Finsberg: I have read the Black report frequently. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that what he is saying comes, not from a proper reading of the Black report but from selective quotations.
Brent district health authority is currently funded at a level significantly above its target calculated according to RAWP criteria. According to the region's most recent calculations, Brent is currently 16 per cent. above its target on a regional basis, and almost 30 per cent. above its target calculated on a national basis. Overall, the region is significantly over target by 11 per cent. It means that even if Brent met its regional target, it would still be much better off than many health districts.
What do the factors that make up those calculations show us? They show clearly that they are designed to take account of relative social deprivation. The North-West Thames regional health authority considers the proportion of ethnic minorities, elderly pensioners living alone and households lacking amenities when calculating its districts' targets. As the hon. Gentleman said, those factors are evident in his district and they are taken into account when North-West Thames authority works out the RAWP position for its region. Cross-flows of patients between districts are also taken into account and, as I said earlier, about half the patients who attend Central Middlesex hospital are not from Brent district.
The operation of RAWP has and will have a significant effect on North-West Thames region and on Brent. The


region has received only a quarter of the average development increase available to the NHS as a whole during the past five years. Not only that, but for this year and next year we have agreed with regional chairmen that an element of NHS development money can be funded from money saved by making more efficient use of NHS resources, one aspect of which is the significant reduction in the number of chief officer posts in the NHS consequent on the changes in NHS management structure that we introduced last year.
Based on the region's calculations following the provisional allocation figures issued in July, the most likely pattern for Brent is a reduction in real terms of £200,000 in the current financial year, and a further £500,000 in 1983–84 and in 1984–85—at least half of which the district will fund from increased efficiency in the provision of services. However, based on the region's calculations following the provisional allocations figures issued in July, the most likely pattern is that Brent will need to find efficiency savings of £700,000 in the current financial year and about £250,000 in 1983–84 and in 1984–85. In addition, it will also be required by the region to release a further sum in 1983–84 and 1984–85—of about £250,000 in each year—reflecting its distances from its RAWP target. This money will be used, for example, within the region to enable major improvements in services to be made in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, which are seriously underfunded even on a national basis.
To set this in perspective, in 1980–81, the then Brent and Harrow area health authority spent £170 per head of its resident population on health service provision—compared with only £100 per head available to Bedfordshire area health authority. A similar contrast exists between Brent and other over-funded London health authorities and many health authorities elsewhere in the country.
The really important point, however, is that the problems faced by Brent health authority are not simply about the level of resources available, nor are they problems unique to this health authority. The major problem is a planning problem, and it is one experienced by many other health authorities in London. Put very simply, in common with many other health districts in London, Brent has a much higher per capita expenditure on NHS services than most—even taking account of its level of social deprivation—because of a higher than average level of provision of expensive acute hospital services, arguably higher than is needed. An illustration of this is provided by the fact that there are 10 other major acute hospitals—including four teaching hospitals—within a five mile radius of the Central Middlesex hospital. These 11 acute hospitals between them provide more than 7,000 beds.
The hon. Member referred to press reports of a possible threat to the future of the Central Middlesex hospital. I am not aware of any specific proposals to close or change the use of the Central Middlesex. Indeed, I understand that the region has, over the past few years, invested significant capital funds in upgrading most of the wards in the hospital to provide a much needed improvement in the services provided there, and officials in my Department are currently considering proposals for an acute psychiatric unit to be built there.
I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman wishes to help morale and job applications he should stop saying that he has read the reports in leaked documents to the effect that

the Central Middlesex hospital is under threat of closure. That does more harm than anything else. If he were to rely on published information instead of on leaked documents, he would be able to do a better job for his hospital, for which he cares so much.
However, I must underline the complexity of the planning problem in this part of London. Partly because of the historical concentration of medical teaching in London and partly because significant advances in medical knowledge and technology in recent years have changed the basic requirements for an effective pattern of health services, there is now significant over-provision of acute hospital services in Inner London, matched—it must be said—by insufficient provision for certain of the priority services, particularly services for elderly patients. Other factors—such as the quality of primary health care services and those services provided by local authority social services departments—are also relevant.
The steps that we have taken will help to ensure that the plans made to change the present pattern of services to accommodate these changes properly reflect local needs, but we cannot stand still, and this may mean that in some cases well-loved hospitals and institutions will need to undergo changes of use or structural changes to accommodate different functions.
Brent cannot be exempt from this process, but I emphasise that I have received no firm proposals. It is the regional health authority's job to develop a strategic plan for the region's services, and the work is still at its early stages. However, the local health authorities—including Brent—will be given a full opportunity to participate in this process. Indeed, much of the strategic planning carried out by the region will be based on proposals generated by district health authorities themselves. In view of the complexity and importance of this, I am delighted that the regional chairman made it clear to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health—when they met to review the region's activities last year as part the new accountability arrangements—that she considers the production of a proper strategy to be a top priority for her authority.
The hon. Gentleman has also referred to his concern about the specific changes proposed by Brent as part of its operational plan for the coming year. In particular, he has raised the proposal to close Leamington Park hospital, a geriatric hospital situated just outside the territory of the district. As he must know, there is a formal consultation procedure which health authorities must follow when they intend to close or change the use of health buildings. One of its basic tenets is that health authorities must seek ministerial approval if their proposals meet objections at local level from the CHC which they are unable to accommodate. This means that it would be premature for me to comment on the detail of the proposal. However, it may be helpful if I put on record at this stage what I understand to be the basis of the authority's proposal.
I understand that the building itself is in poor condition, and it is estimated that it will require approximately £1 million to keep the hospital open. Empty wards at Willesden and Neasden can be used to rehouse the patients, and two wards have already been upgraded for this purpose. There will be no reduction in geriatric provision, but a reduction in acute beds, of which Brent has an excess of 130 over regional guidelines.
The facts speak for themselves. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the resources available to the nation


are limited. The resources that we have made available are a larger share of the cake than any previous Government have been able to put forward. If districts and regions work in the most efficient and effective way—making full use of private contractors where that will save money and give additional money for patient care—that is the way

forward. It does no good for Labour Members constantly to repeat the falsehood that we are cutting the NHS. That is not so. We have provided a larger cake, and it is for the regions, under the NHS system, to allocate the slices according to local needs.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Two o'clock.